Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Perilous Position of Choice- news & updates
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
msp
Yes, yes, and yes.

For my part, I think all I'm doing is dancing aroung the fact that... truth be told, I'm still stuck on identifying as feminist and yet not pro-choice. I don't believe one can truly not support choice and be a feminist. I've tried to wrap my head around it in the past (especially during the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court - his wife had been on the board of Feminists for Life and I spent a lot of time on their website), but it just doesn't work. And that's just laying in the background of all my remarks here. So, there you go.
erinjane
I think part of my problem with your argument, Katze is that you place a lot of emphasis and the idea of motherhood and being able to have children, whereas I think that there should be less of an emphasis placed on this.

While I do agree that it's an amazing thing to have a child, I also recognize that many women don't ever want to have children and that to them, motherhood just isn't an issue they have an interest in. I myself do want kids, and do, like I said, believe it's an amazing thing, but it's definatly not at the forefront of what I want to be appreciated for and for what I appreciate about myself.

You can never really know these things until they happen, but if I were to get pregnant, diabetes aside, I think I would have an abortion with near certainty. I'm 20, in the middle of my uni career, I live at home, I'm with a guy I don't see myself with in the long term, and I only make around $500 a month. Adding to the practical side, I just don't think I'm ready at this point in my life. I get exhausted after babysitting my niece for three hours, and I see how tired my brother is with her and I just know I would NOT be able to handle that at this point in my life. I've always been honest with the person I'm with as well, letting them know that if I were to get pregnant that I would most likely abort.

Call me selfish, but it's my body and my life. I don't see a fetus in the early stages as a 'person', just as cells. I think this is a big part of where our opinions differ.

And I think abortion would be much less of an issue if there was proper sex education in schools, and proper, cheap (AKA free), reliable birth control available for everyone. The only reason that I know everything I know about safe sex and contraception is because I happened to be fairly internet savvy when I was 13 and stumbled upon www.scarleteen.com.

I can't say for sure, and I know it does happen, but in my opinion coerced abortions are less common then you think.
anarch
katze: Many will not be white or not married. So really our culture is celebrating a certain way of life and promoting the reproduction of these select few. In our society reproduction of the rest is not valued, so the womanhood of the rest is not valued.

I agreed with this part until "womanhood". Do you not see that that sentence devalues women who for reasons of infertility or personal preference or whatever, won't be mothers? I think you've said that you value them too, but your language says otherwise.

The best way to handle the situation is to continue access to abortion, but to promote other options and create a system to sustain them. This would include better health care, better child care options, streamlining the adoption process and making it more affordable for those who want to adopt, more education on reproduction and fertility, more flexibility with careers and jobs for mothers, etc.

I wish more feminists would speak out about the lack of choice for women to have babies and either raise them or give them up for adoption

Feminists ARE the ones I hear advocating for "better health care, better child care options, more education on reproduction and fertility, more flexibility with careers and jobs for mothers, etc", alongside freedom to choose abortion or see a pregnancy through. (Meanwhile most of the Punish the Sluts crowd I've encountered go on and on about "saving lives" without so much as paying lip service to improving social infrastructures for children who've already been born.) Who do you have in mind when you say "feminists" push abortion and ignore the rest? I would concede that adoption doesn't come up as often (in my experience) as health care, child care, reproductive ed, work flexibility etc - I know I don't usually mention it because I feel like adoption gets enough air time from the Slut Punishers. You're making me rethink that though.
katiebelle2882
Katze,

you are assuming every woman, just bc her body caan support life, should have children. thats a big fat NO. the fact is, probably around 50% of people who have children shouldnt, and they only do so bc we live in a country where having children is glorified to an extent that it shouldnt be. living in a place where we only make that belief worse, would not be a woman's world to me either. just bc you CAN do something with your body doesnt mean thats a good thing to be doing with it.
erinjane
QUOTE(katiebelle2882 @ Sep 14 2006, 09:58 AM) *

Katze,

you are assuming every woman, just bc her body caan support life, should have children. thats a big fat NO. the fact is, probably around 50% of people who have children shouldnt, and they only do so bc we live in a country where having children is glorified to an extent that it shouldnt be. living in a place where we only make that belief worse, would not be a woman's world to me either. just bc you CAN do something with your body doesnt mean thats a good thing to be doing with it.


This was my issue. The current trend of this thread is really interesting to me because I just started an honours course in Feminism and Mothering. Yesterday I read a bunch of articles about the exclusion of non-mothers from discourses. There was a conference discussed where there was only one workshop on being a non-mother due to infertility but there was a group of women who were upset that their situations and or choices weren't represented.

I think over-valueing motherhood can be just as problematic as under-valueing it, just for different people.
greenbean
"Feminists ARE the ones I hear advocating for "better health care, better child care options, more education on reproduction and fertility, more flexibility with careers and jobs for mothers, etc", alongside freedom to choose abortion or see a pregnancy through."

Exactly Anarch!

"I find it interesting that this discussion has remained so polarized with many (or all) of you feeling like you are on the opposing side of my position. I'm only arguing for true respect for women and our bodies and thier natural functions. I'm advocating focusing on celebrating this in all women, regardless of race or income. I'm advocating valuing this in addition to all the other qualities women have to offer. Yes, a woman can be a great mother in addtion to other callings or responsibilites she might have. I believe true empowerment for women comes with supporting and promoting this.

Katze, when put this way, no, I don't feel as if you are the opposing side. I also agree that giving birth is an amazing thing and is something that only a woman can do...but that doesn't mean every woman HAS to do it. In an earlier post you asked why abortion was heavily promoted by feminists, that is something you and I disagree on. All the feminists I know and observe promote the CHOICE of abortion, but we also promote (maybe more so) access to sex education and proper contraception so that there will be fewer abortions.
ginger_kitty
QUOTE(katze @ Sep 13 2006, 01:32 PM) *

While I wouldn't want to deny the right to abortion, I feel that promoting it does not empower women to be all that they can be. Abortion halts the functioning of a woman's body (at least temporarily). To have this be the standard practice in a culture says that this is not a woman's world.


I just find this statement incredibly troubling. Let's make it very clear, feminist do not going out publicly pushing abortion. We don't hassle pregnant women to have abortions. Most of us do support the choice. It's all about choice not 'promoting'.

Like everyone else has said we do, desperately, need better sex ed in our country(not to mention the world as a whole needs it) but I and most, would back up causes to help sex education reform just as quickly as we would back up Pro-choice causes.

I can't help but get the feeling you consider bearing children an important measure of a woman's worth. It seems insulting. The facts that we have never had a female president, women get paid less than men on average, the fact men even consider debating control over female reproductive rights, and a ton of other things say it's not a woman's world. But to me, part of being feminist is fighting for all of those things. We don't have to fight to become mothers, it is socially acceptable to be a mother.

I hope this makes sense and I didn't go off on a long rant.
anarch
Hiya greenbean!
/waves


I should add, Katze, that like you, this exchange is helping me to understand more why some people on the "other side" (but yes I understand you personally are not pushing for abortion to be illegal) believe what they do. I don't agree with the priorities, but it's illuminating. Thanks.
snafooey
Thanks, Lucizoe. smile.gif
katze
Hi Gals,

Apparently I need to re-emphasize that I'm not saying that a woman's worth is based on the ability to have children. I'm not saying that all women should have children. I don't even know if I will ever have children.

Of course it is very socially acceptable for a married woman to be a mother and housewife. I'm not concerned with fighting for that right. What I am concerned about the general respect for the way a woman's body functions. Sure the female reproductive system is respected within a stable and financially secure marriage. In any other case it is not.

I'll see if an analogy works to get my point across. All people eat, this is a natural functioning of the human body. Because of this we have times set aside for eating, often stopping work to eat. This is all considered normal and our society is set up to accomodate it. But what if only women ate and men didn't. Would the society on the whole be set up to accomodate women in this way? Might women not be hired for jobs because they would need to take a break and eat? Might men say "you're hungry again, just take a pill so your life won't be interrupted by needing food."

This is how I see abortion. Sure women don't have to have children like they need to eat, but it is still just as natural as eating. Every accomodation should be made for women who do want to have children. Women shouldn't have to choose between having a life or having a baby. Women should not have to make the hard choice of abortion because they want to continue to have a life. When abortion as a choice and solution is the focus, it takes the focus off of a woman's ability to have children and be good mothers in spite of the difficulties women face.

And I wouldn't assume that the militant pro-lifers out there really respect women or their ability to have children. They are more driven by an attitude of righteousness than that of love and respect.

katiebelle,
Who are these 50% of women who shouldn't have children?
pepper
well, that i agree with. (the analogy could have been about menstruation instead of eating. and we DO take a pill for that, don't we? there's even a pill to stop it altogether, but that's another thread...)
so, while i don't disagree with the arguement below, i also don't agree that the solution is to decrease access to abortion. we're talking about a whole cultural attitude adjustment here. this a culture of selfishness in the extreme, we have at the expense of most of the rest of the world. there is a big problem, i think, with the idea that a baby is an inconvenience instead of a natural occurence. sure, there are women who don't want kids, but there are many, so many who DO want them and put it off, waiting for some 'perfect' moment when they're 'more secure', whatever that means, and end up on fertility drugs 'cause they waited so dang long.
this culture isn't supportive of pregnancy and childbirth outside of that perfect, financially secure marriage, does that stop some people from having kids? i'm sure it does. does it push some women to look at abortion as their only option? i'm sure it does that too. but it doesn't stop everyone anymore than every woman who has an abortion being a woman with no other choice.

that's the issue right there, cultural attitude or no, it's all about choice. i WANT to have that choice, personally. sure, it would be terrific to have a better support system in place for moms and dads and kids, but not at the expense of having that choice in the first place. i say that as a mother and as a woman who has had an abortion herself.
erinjane
http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/local_story_259154909.html

This is so horrible.
greenbean
See, I don't agree with that analogy, because we NEED food to survive but we dont need to give birth to survive. And as far as abortion being violence on a womans body, I argue that pregnancy is as well.

We can all agree that its hard to be a working mother, particulary if one is single,,but that doesnt mean that accomadations CAN be made for these mothers...for instance, I have a friend who had an abortion because she is a professional ballet dancer who was just accepted to a great ballet company. No accomadation is possible in that situation: you cant be a pregnant ballet dancer! You just cant!! Its not anyones fault that this job cant accomadate her pregnancy, and she ultimatly chose the ballet over having a baby.

In other related news, heres a funny/maybe not funny article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...INGEJL45D11.DTL
katze
QUOTE(greenbean @ Sep 17 2006, 02:32 PM) *

See, I don't agree with that analogy, because we NEED food to survive but we dont need to give birth to survive. And as far as abortion being violence on a womans body, I argue that pregnancy is as well.


I already pointed out this problem with the analogy. The point was not about needing to have a baby, it was about the disrespect of something distinctive to women's bodies. Imagine if men could get pregnant. There would be a standard minimum of six months maternity leave (possibly even up to a year with no interruptions in career advancement), nurseries would be in all offices (just like kitchens are now) and breast feeding during meetings would be acceptable.

QUOTE(greenbean @ Sep 17 2006, 02:32 PM) *

We can all agree that its hard to be a working mother, particulary if one is single,,but that doesnt mean that accomadations CAN be made for these mothers...for instance, I have a friend who had an abortion because she is a professional ballet dancer who was just accepted to a great ballet company. No accomadation is possible in that situation: you cant be a pregnant ballet dancer! You just cant!! Its not anyones fault that this job cant accomadate her pregnancy, and she ultimatly chose the ballet over having a baby.


Accomodations could be made. Just because they aren't currently, doesn't mean it has to be this way. Sure, a ballet dancer would have to take some time off if she wanted to have a baby, but it should be an option to be both a ballet dancer and a mother.
pepper
um, no. for a ballet dancer no accomodations can be made. that isn't a career, it's your LIFE. there is absolutely no room for children in a dancer's life.
roseviolet
QUOTE(pepper @ Sep 18 2006, 12:25 PM) *

um, no. for a ballet dancer no accomodations can be made. that isn't a career, it's your LIFE. there is absolutely no room for children in a dancer's life.


That is an incorrect assumption, Pepper. I know a very successful ballet dancer who has had a long, prosperous career ... and also has twin 6-year-old boys. Let's not cloud this issue with sweeping generalizations, please.
pepper
still, i think that's the exception to the rule. when i was dancing it was totally engrossing to say the least.
erinjane
I agree with you Katze that there have to be changes made to legislation for families. There is such an emphasis on family values, and yet so little money is devoted to issues like that. I mean, here in Manitoba the liberals had set up a 5 year deal for childcare, and now instead we have the stupid conservative tax credit and the previous promise is flushed down the toilet.

But I feel like some of your suggestions, for the ballet dancer, for example, aren't really feasible. We'd have to live in a Utopia to allow for such things, and the truth is, some women who are dancers may not feel like it's such a sacrifice. Part of the reason for avoiding children for dancers (just an idea, someone correct me if I'm wrong) might be trauma on a woman's body.

I understand wanting more options for family life at a job that's in an office but jobs like acting, dancing, etc are in a much different field that I think would be harder to legislate. At this point in time, I think it's just smart to concentrate on better things like maternity leave, childcare spaces, etc. at large in our own communities.

It's also difficult to talk about people in such specific situations because we don't know their feelings or opinions.

(Sorry if that was muddled, writing kinda fast here.)
greenbean
My friend the dancer was young when this happened, and had just gotten a great oppurtunity to travel with a company. She plans on being a mother years from now, it just wasn't the right time. If she chose to stay pregnant, even if she gave the child up for adoption, the pregnancy would have really set her back right as she was embarking on her dream. It was a tough decision for her, especially because the 'accident' was made with a long-term boyfriend, who was willing to parent the child with her if that was what she chose. But he knew it was her choice and her life,..they are still together and happy.

I do agree that office buildings should have nurseries for new moms, and some do,..in fact my cousin works in daycare at a medical building. I'm just saying that not all women are in careers that can make accomadations for their pregnancy,..and again, its the womans choice in those situations if they want to leave the job to be a mother, or switch to a job that is more accomadating to mothers, etc.

Most importantly, I think women should only have babies because they want to. Not because society or their parents or because they got accidently pregnant and figure they should just have it. It really saddens me that there are so many kids in foster care. Its NOT that I'm suggesting those kids should have been aborted,..I just wish family planning was stressed more in our culture than this arcaic idea that we all should be breeding like crazy.
sybarite
That's it, greenbean. Every child a wanted child.
erinjane
Exactly, greenbean. Well said. smile.gif
pollystyrene
This does not make us look good. What a bunch of nuts!
msp
QUOTE(pollystyrene @ Sep 18 2006, 11:20 PM) *

This does not make us look good. What a bunch of nuts!

Nooooo, no no. What's this "us" business? Those story has nothing to do with reproductive choice and abortion rights. This woman (from the sound of it) chose to continue her pregnancy. That should have been the end of the story. And? What kind of doctor did they think was going to perform an abortion on a woman who'd been dragged there against her will? "Um, never mind the rope marks around her wrists and ankles, doctor." dry.gif
pollystyrene
All I'm saying is that the anti-choice side will use something like that against the pro-choice side without seeing what was really going on(like that's something new). I certainly don't identify the movement with people like that, but I'm sure you'll see them holding up posters "I wouldn't kidnap my daughter to force her to have an abortion".
msp
I know what you mean, but (and keep in mind I worked at NARAL for some time) I don't worry about that so much. They'll make shit up to use against us. Whether it's this case or something else. Those signs are fairly easily defused with, "Good! Nobody should. You're absolutely right - it was her decision to continue this pregnancy." Bonus points for making their heads pop off at the notion that we agree on something.
maddy29
just a quick post-good news-we had our Mass. primary yesterday and TONS of pro-equality cool ass people won! very exciting stuff!!!! i feel a little ray of hope shining down, like maybe, just maybe, we can win some big elections this fall and change some things!!! woo hoo!
ginger_kitty
QUOTE(pollystyrene @ Sep 19 2006, 07:51 PM) *

All I'm saying is that the anti-choice side will use something like that against the pro-choice side without seeing what was really going on(like that's something new). I certainly don't identify the movement with people like that, but I'm sure you'll see them holding up posters "I wouldn't kidnap my daughter to force her to have an abortion".



I get your point, a lot of anti abortion people will use a story like that to group pro-choice people with psychos like that to make us look bad. Which is definately a shame.

maddy, I am with you crossing my fingers and hoping the Nov. elections help turn things around a bit. I have been trying to encourage everyone I know to get out and vote even though this isn't a presidential election year, so changes can be made.
roseviolet
Found this through Boing Boing: morality clauses, EC, and broken condoms
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/09/m...en-condoms.html
How strange is it that they would have no problem giving EC to a married woman, but would refuse it to an unmarried woman. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
erinjane
Hokay then. Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I found this through feministblogs.com.





http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006...ntrol-massacre/
"“That’s why I make the comparison between dead Jews and dead babies.”
roseviolet
ErinJane, that is bizarre. I couldn't even watch the whole thing. It's sad that someone can get on television and spread such false information. The fact is that the birth control pill prevents ovulation. The woman's body does not release an egg, therefore, there is no egg to be fertilized. Hence no pregnancy. Isn't this a good thing?
pollystyrene
I read an article today about the pro-life movement focussing more on contraception and apparently, it's dividing the ranks. There's quite a few who disagree with it, saying that if they don't focus strictly on ending abortion, the whole movement will weaken and fall apart.
msp
Well, and of course there are many, many, many people who oppose abortion but use birth control. The die-hard anti-choicers run a real risk of alienating their own people, the moderates who (rightly) recognize birth control, comprehensive (or at least "abstinence plus") sex ed, and family planning as a way to reduce the number of abortions.
ginger_kitty
*crosses fingers and hopes the pro-lifers split, fight amoungst themselves, and self-destruct!*
tesao
ginger kitty, i'm with YOU!

rosie violet, querida, the fact is, that it makes no sense. these people make.no.sense. these are the same people who are opposed to abortion under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE because it is "killing" yet are also PRO death penalty! there is NO.SENSE!! on the contrary, it is nonsense.

we know that.

and have i mentioned lately just how much i adore the ignore function????
LoveMyPugs
WOW!

Don't think I'll be checking back into this discussion.

dry.gif blink.gif
mornington
lovemypugs, ignore the tr*ll. If you add him to your ignore list in the control panel, the discussion in here suddenly makes sense!

what tes said. I will never understand these people.
msp
It's fucked up, but it makes perfect sense. Because you see, it's not about babies, abortion, protecting the innocent, what have you. It's about control. But better yet, check out this chart posted on Alas, a blog back in March.

(In other news, I'm surprised no one's commented on the fact that the House voted to pass CCPA/CIANA last week. Luckily, it was stopped in the Senate. I know it got lost a little bit in the shuffle, but besides endangering young women by isolating them from trusted adults in instances when they can't turn to their parents, it also saddles them with the laws of their home state no matter where they travel. Laws don't typically work like this - it's called federalism and it's a core principle of our government. Say, if you're driving through West Virginia in a car with Ohio plates, you can't get pulled over for going the West Virginia speed limit - 70 on the interstate - because the speed limit in Ohio is lower. You follow the law of the state that you're in.)


IPB Image
sybarite
Thanks for posting the CCPA/CIANA info msp. I'm not in the US but am anxious about what's happening, so appreciate the update.

Stipulating someone must revert to their home state's laws wherever they are seems bizarre to me. Is there a precedent for this? How badly people want to control these young women. 'Prayerful reflection' my ass.
maddy29
From NARAL:

All your calls and emails made a difference! Late Friday night, September 29, pro-choice senators blocked Majority Leader Bill Frist's dangerous and divisive "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" (CIANA)! This is a major victory over far-right, anti-choice groups that had bullied the Senate into passing the bill, right before the elections.

Thank you for your help! Frist was three votes shy of the 60 he needed to move the bill forward for a vote.

The anti-choice-controlled House already passed CIANA, so if we had lost the vote on Friday, the bill would have gone straight to President Bush - who has promised to sign it into law. CIANA would impose a sweeping and confusing parental-involvement law on doctors, young women, and responsible adults who are simply helping teens facing crisis situations.

Friday's vote underscores the importance of electing pro-choice lawmakers on November 7, and sending emails and making calls to your elected officials - no matter where they stand on the issue of women's freedom and privacy. The change of only a few votes could have paved the way for the Senate to pass a dangerous and divisive bill. Now, take this momentum into the final weeks of the elections - and remind your friends and family to vote pro-choice!
nohope
Court won't rethink 'Mary Doe' abortion case
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/10/scotus.abortion/index.html

This is the first abortion decision of one of the most conserviative courts in reacent history. What do you think it signals about the right to choose in america, the Republican party as a pro-life party and Bush as a pro life president?
hoosierman78
QUOTE(nohope @ Oct 13 2006, 01:51 AM) *

Court won't rethink 'Mary Doe' abortion case
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/10/scotus.abortion/index.html

This is the first abortion decision of one of the most conserviative courts in reacent history. What do you think it signals about the right to choose in america, the Republican party as a pro-life party and Bush as a pro life president?


Honestly, I don't think it reflects at all on the Republican Party being a pro-life party nor Bush as a pro-life president. I think it reflects more on the justices themselves being able to put aside personal opinions and, simply stated, interpret the law. It also signals that they have respect for SCOTUS precedent and most likely will not rule to make abortion illegal. Now, if they turn it over to once again be a state matter, that could have much different results. I will wait until a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade is made, as this ruling, from what I read, only addresses the medical reasons for abortion. It is, IMO, a positive sign though.
nickclick
whoo hoo! stick it to 'em, girls!

South Dakotans Reject Sweeping Abortion Ban
maddy29
yeah baby!!!!! take that stupid ass christian republicans who think they can control women's bodies! fuck you!!!! ha ha! losers!!!!

i am SO proud of south dakota, and all the people who have been there workign so hard to make sure this ban is rejected. i'm really impressed by what they've done there. This makes a big statement.

very sad about the bans on gay marriage, but not surprised. this isn't something that's going away anytime soon, and we'll keep fighting for equal rights.

faerietails
.
lucizoe
Allow me to translate for y'all:

Waaaaaaahhh! Waaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh!

Thanks
crazyoldcatlady
hot damn! i was afraid they'd slip that CIANA thing in under the rug b/c there wasn't much publicity.
crinoline
Since there isn't really a birth control politics thread, I'll post here. I do want to make it clear that I am by no means implying that emergency contraception is abortion in any way.

Recently a friend of mine found herself in a situation that required the "morning after" pill. This is supposedly available OTC in all 50 states. She called me because she doesn't keep up with politics and didn't know how to obtain it.
I directed her to a pharmacy that was supposed to have it OTC. Turns out that while it is now legal to sell to adults OTC, they cannot begin to sell it until all of the prescription pills that they had ordered are gone. Conveniently enough, although the new policy went into effect months ago, they have a years worth of the prescription kind they have to sell. WHAT? This is news to me!
Doesn't it make sense to implement new drug policies as soon as they are concrete?! What other medication would they be allowed to do that with?

I should mention that we live in the Deep South, and it's amazing the little things people do to avoid following "liberal" laws. Is this an isolated case, or is this how pharmacies all over the states are treating the new policy?
Is the whole OTC availability just on paper?

I'm angry and frightened that it is so easy to lose the reproductive rights I thought we had just won!
greenbean
Birth control choices DO fall under this thread,,so with that:
JESUS!!, thats f-ed up crinoline. That pharm is out right bullshiting. I got Plan B no problem when I needed it. I HOPE that is just an isolated case but sadly, it could be happening all over. You and your friend should shut those m-fers down!

These backward 'pro-lifers' are ruthless. Even here in California we had a proposition yesterday on mandatory parental notification if a teen seeks an abortion,..and it was nearly identical to what the state already voted against last election! Its like, dude, didnt we already vote no on this?
tesao
crinoline, that is SO frelled up! maybe your friend will get lucky and the expiration date is BEFORE they run out of the frelling prescription drugs. sometimes i think that people just don't target pharmaceutical companies ENOUGH. it makes me crazy when i see how much generic drugs cost in foreign countries where things like OCs are OTC. they are literally a tiny FRACTION of the cost. and so many insurance companies won't even PAY for contraceptives. grrrrrrrrrrr.

i have to second the south dakota love. when i first read that headline on screen, i had to REREAD it to make sure that i had really understood it! how wonderful is it that it said exactly what i THOUGHT it had said???

lucizoe: that translation was PRICELESS! muito thank you!!!
vesicapisces
The hold-up on Plan B/emergency contraception has to do with the packaging mandated by the FDA - they required the manufacturer to repackage it so the difference between the OTC (OK to sell to women 18 and older) and RX (for women under 18) versions is clear. The women's clinic I work for just got notification that the repackaged version is available now. With a lot of contraceptives, you can return the unused ones (like ones that have expired before they could be dispensed) but the company that makes Plan B is not a huge corporation like Ortho - it may be that they can't afford to buy back what pharmacies have on hand. It does suck, especially since pharmacies apparently HAVE so much on hand but it was always such a trial to get it...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.