Posted on 06/04/2006 5:34:02 AM PDT by Fzob
Maybe she's a defense attorney? ;-D
I agree, the story is BS. Is there anything that can force the WP to admit that the story is fictional?
I want to SCREAM!!!!!!
She is DEAD WRONG on so many things I don't know where to start.
First off, her baby had only a 50% chance of making it through the first trimester. At age 42, the miscarriage rate is that high because most eggs are aneuploid and will not make a full baby. Between weeks 7 and 12, at least half of women of 42 years will miscarry.
Second, she could have EASILY taken the morning after pill. After all, it is only 2 birth control pills, followed by 2 more the next day. She could have borrowed from a friend, but also pharmacists will give them to you in many situations. She could have told any pharmacist any number of stories to get 4 pills. Even the truth. (Recently I needed a hypodermic needle for a med I am taking, and was one short. A pharmacist gave me one. I don't look like an addict, and I had a prescription for the injectible med in hand.) I would bet big money that if she lives in a middle-to-large city, she would have had them within 3 hours by pharmacist shopping.
I have a friend who was in a small town, a ski resort, with her boyfriend. They had protected sex, but the condom broke. She was horrified. She went crying to a local pharmacist and told him the story. She had the 4 pills in hand minutes later. (By the way, I don't approve of this type of post-conceptive birth control but I thought I'd mention this to show how wrong this liberal whackjob writer is.)
Third wrong thing. SHE FORGOT HER BIRTH CONTROL. That is no one's fault but her own. If not conceiving is THAT important to her, she should not be swayed by a swaying male member in front of her. "Passion" caused her to lose her head, at 42? Puh-LEEZ. Also, at that age, she KNOWS when she is at the wrong time of her cycle. She KNEW darn well that she was near ovulation.
Of course, the worst wrong thing of ALL was that she was FORCED to get an abortion. No matter how unwanted that child was at the start, that child would have been one of the greatest blessings of her life. The caboose child frequently is. At the least, at birth, if she still did not feel she could love or raise the child, there are thousands of adoptive parents out there waiting for a chance to.
I didn't know I had any respect for the WaPo, but it seems I had enough for me to now lose it all, for printing this garbage.
"i" before "e", except after "c" gets me every time.:)
I don't believe that there is any evidence that the Plan B protocol prevents implantation. For some reason, both sides of the abortion issue continue to quote 30-old information that never had any supporting evidence.
However, newer evidence has been validated by more than one investigator and was reported to the advisory committee that reviewed the protocol last year for the FDA.
The evidence is not all in, but I am pretty much convinced that the protocols only work before ovulation and any effect after ovulation would serve to slow the sperm so that it's less likely to get to the oocyte in the fallopian tube, where fertilization takes place and to actually *encourage* implantation if there is fertilization.
This latter makes since when we remember that one of the reasons for miscarriage is low progesterone and fertility docs often give progesterone to women early in pregnancy.
The most significant are the studies from Brazil by Croxatto and his group (H.B. Croxatto et al. / Contraception 70 (2004) 442–450)," which was a blind study, cycling women who were otherwise unable to get pregnant (sterilized or with - what I consider unethical and potentially abortifacient - IUD's) through 3 courses - placebo, and two forms of progesterone-only pills. The researchers followed the women with serial ultrasound and hormonal blood essays.
There is a study by Durand, et.al. (M. Durand et al. / Contraception 71 (2005) 451– 457), from 2001 which tested surgically sterilized women given 2 doses of Levonorgestrel, 12 hours apart. These women were studied by serial ultrasounds and women who ovulated also underwent endometrial biopsy.
There was no difference in their uterine lining function or anatomy although there was a difference in the expression of glycodelin-A. This protein prevents binding of the sperm to the zona pellucida of the oocyte and so, prevents fertilization. (There is some speculation that the protein acts to help implantation, too.)
In the meantime, the Catholic hospitals do sometimes use a protocol that involves the use of a test for lutein hormone, indicating whether or not a woman has ovulated. They only prescribe the protocols if she is not pregnant (and so, she was pregnant before the unprotected sex in question) and has not yet ovulated (so there is no oocyte to fertilize).
Even this use is controversial. And it's still ontroversial.
Croxattoa, et al., Pituitary–ovarian function following the standard levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive dose or a single 0.75-mg dose given on the days preceding ovulation Contraception 70 (2004) 442–450
Durand, et. al., On the mechanisms of action of short-term levonorgestrel administration in emergency contraception. Contraception 64 (2001) 227–234
Seppala, et. al., Glycodelin: A Major Lipocalin Protein of the Reproductive Axis with Diverse Actions in Cell Recognition and Differentiation Endocrine Reviews 23 (4): 401-430 Copyright © 2002 by The Endocrine Society.
It more probably prevents implantation in the uterus. Conception can't be stopped if sperm is allowed through the cervix (except for the pill, which prevents follicles from ripening to eggs).
No. It can take a good month for the cumulative effect of the birth control pills to set in and prevent ovulation. When used after sex as a birth control, there is nothing the hormones can do to stop a ripening follicle at that point.
Your #2 was correct.
You can think what you like -- and clearly you're going to anyway -- but your amateur detective work is flawed.
The weather data you cite was gathered at Reagan National Airport, and is accurate *only* to that specific location. This is about five miles away from the clinic she was presumably at (at 16th and L streets). As most people are aware, the amount of precipitation can vary a great degree between locations just a few miles apart, due to the fluctuating conditions in the storm cell. I've experienced endless cases of this myself. For example, once my wife and I had been hoping for rain, because there had been a long period without rain and our gardens and yard were seriously in need of water. As I was driving around doing errands one day, it finally started raining so hard that I had to have my wipers on their max setting and even then they were barely keeping up. I phoned my wife at home to give her a verbal "high five" -- but she reported that it wasn't raining a drop at the house, even though I was only a few miles away. That whole day, the house only got a very light sprinkle, much to our frustration, while other parts of town reported frequent downpours. And this was not a freak occurrence -- variability in rainfall from place to place over the city is something I have experienced quite often personally, and is a well-known fact of meteorology.
The author could easily have been in a "downpour" (and at 57 degrees, as you note, that would be pretty "bleak") when she arrived at the clinic "shortly before 10am" even if Reagan National Airport had not yet received much rain.
Worse yet, you "forgot" to point out that the 9:43 precipitation reading is unavailable ("N/A" -- which doesn't indicate zero, since other readings for the same day show "0.00" for an actual zero reading) for the period when the author would have been approaching the clinic, but the conditions indicator does say "RAIN" for that period, of unspecified volume. For all you know, it might have been a heavy rain, and your source can't answer the question either way, although you attempt to use it to bolster your presumption.
You also "forgot" to mention that although Reagan Airport received "only" 0.09 inches during the morning *before* 10am, it received a hefty 0.43 inches in the next hour, a very respectable rainfall. There was heavy rain that morning, despite your attempts to minimize the amount of precipitation by carefully choosing your period to cover many hours that weren't relevant (like midnight-9am).
But wait, there's more! And here we get to the most interesting data.
Also note that between the 9:43 reading and the 9:52 reading, 0.08 inches of rain had accumulated. This doesn't sound like much (and you attempt to imply that this is a minor amount), but 0.08 inches in 9 minutes is a rate of 0.53 inches per hour. 0.5 inches per hour is a rate that this site" describes as the sustained rate of a "50-year storm", this site defines "intense rainfall" as anything over 0.5 inches/hour, this site says that 0.5 inches/hour "surpasses the rule of thumb used by local forecasters for guidance in issuing flood statements" for Los Angeles, this site from the NOAA says that "0.4-0.5 IN/HR ARE THE FLASH FLOOD GUIDANCE VALUES", and so on. This page from the National Weather service speaks of a "brief downpour" producing up to a quarter inch of rain. A rainfall rate of 0.53 in/hour is *not* a light drizzle, it's coming down pretty hard.
Also, if the clinic is the one on 16th and L streets, the parade route you describe is only a few blocks away from it, and could easily have interefered with the travel of someone trying to reach it from the southeast.
So rather than "raise a bit of suspicion", your information actually *bolsters* the validity of her story. It *was* raining pretty seriously on the day described at the time described, it *was* cold enough to be a "bleak" rain, there *was* a parade in proximity to the clinic at that time. A story made up out of whole cloth would be extremely unlikely to contain so many interlocking details that match actual events, places, and times.
Postscript: I wrote the above before reading linda_22003's personal account of the heavy rainfall that day in post #147. I rest my case.
Why in heck would anyone tell personal details about their life. She reminds me of someone on Jerry Springer.
Her living children are lucky they are living. They probably wouldn't be if they had been conceived at an inconvenient time in her life.
Very good, and far more impressive than my mere eyewitness account. Is your address 221B Baker Street? :-D
Yet it is estrogen that builds the lining, and the doctors fill up their patients with it FIRST before adding the progesterone. Perhaps progesterone's effects STOP the further growth of the previously grown uterine lining.
I stand corrected on some of the posts I wrote. What the morning after pill probably does is:
A) If early in the cycle, it has an effect on unripened follicles, possibly delaying them ripening to eggs
B) If later in the follicular phase, it stops the growth of the uterine lining at an early stage if follicles have already started to ripen .
Obviously a uterine lining of only a few millimeters will not sustain the embryo if conception does occur.
And some might be taking the post-sex pill late in their cycle, after ovulation (they would of course never have gotten pregnant).
The minipill used as daily birth control is progestin only, and it has a high rate of failure. No doubt the morning after pill might, too, but people don't conceive every month they try to, anyway. One episode of sex, even during a fertile time, doesn't automatically result in pregnancy. So the morning after pill's got that going for it too.
It more probably prevents implantation in the uterus. Conception can't be stopped if sperm is allowed through the cervix (except for the pill, which prevents follicles from ripening to eggs).
No, wrong. See post #165, and also Mechanisms of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel when used for emergency contraception, and Post-coital administration of levonorgestrel does not interfere with post-fertilization events in the new-world monkey Cebus apella, and also here
I wrote in a later post that I stood corrected by your #165. Luck may be close to 50% in the workings of the progesterone hot of the morning after pill.
No.
YES! See previous posts.
It can take a good month for the cumulative effect of the birth control pills to set in and prevent ovulation.
ONLY because the amounts used in standard birth control pills is intentionally very low so that it's safe for long-term usage (i.e, for many years continuously). A single large "blast" of progesterone, on the other hand, CAN AND DOES interrupt an ovulation cycle that was on the verge of occurring by suppressing the release of Luteinizing Hormone, the chemical "trigger" which sets off the final release of the developed ovarian follicle. Please learn something about a topic before you make more false statements about it. .
When used after sex as a birth control, there is nothing the hormones can do to stop a ripening follicle at that point.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Is there any particular reason you didn't bother to verify your presumption before you posted it as if it were a fact?
Your #2 was correct.
No, it isn't, as verified by quite a few studies.
Just a bit of advice: You might want to refrain from sharing your uninformed opinions when you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.
"Trinessa
Learn more
ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
COMMON BRAND NAME(S): Brevicon, Demulen, Lo/Ovral, Loestrin, Modicon, Nordette, Norinyl, Ortho-Novum, Ovcon, Ovral, Tri-Phasil
WARNING: Smoking cigarettes while using this medication increases your chance of having heart problems. Do not smoke while using this medication. The risk of heart problems increases with age (in women greater than 35 years of age) and with frequent smoking (15 cigarettes per day or greater).
USES: This medication is used to prevent pregnancy or to regulate your menstrual cycle. Certain brands of birth control pills may be used for treating acne or as a 'morning after' pill for emergency contraception. Consult your doctor or pharmacist. Use of this medication does not protect you or your partner against sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., HIV, gonorrhea)."
Now with a few searches I probably could have come up with some more "on-line" companies. I think this lady lawyer could have done so too. And perhaps a couple of calls to Planned Parenthood could have confirmed for her which drug to purchase and with FEDEX she could have had the pill pretty quickly; at least within the 72 hours she mentioned in the article. Of course I don't know what all her efforts were other than what she wrote about, but I think she didn't do enough. JMO
Yes, I had not yet seen your followup post when I was writing mine in response to you.
However, you still have it half wrong. While you have now admitted that the "Plan B" pill can prevent ovulation, you are still incorrectly standing by your false assertion that it prevents implantation of fertilized eggs. It does not, and if you had read post #165 more closely, you would have seen that it addresses this issue as well.
Are those just *information* sites, or actual *order* sites? And can they be ordered without a prescription or doctor's "okay"?
I think this lady lawyer could have done so too. And perhaps a couple of calls to Planned Parenthood could have confirmed for her which drug to purchase and with FEDEX she could have had the pill pretty quickly;
Did you actually find any sites that offered to FEDEX pills to people without a doctor's approval?
at least within the 72 hours she mentioned in the article.
If it gets there after, say, 71 hours, it's only 1/72 as effective (i.e., 1/72 as likely to catch the egg before it ovulates in the necessary timespan compared to getting it early in the 72-hour window).
Of course I don't know what all her efforts were other than what she wrote about, but I think she didn't do enough. JMO
She's doing it now -- she's writing an editorial to try to help lessen the pointless restrictions on the availability of this contraceptive.
In order to help others in the future.
I actually was not there, but I was not far. I live in Northern Virginia, but frequently the way the storm cells travel through our area we can see a deluge in one area and a few drops in another, even between close areas.
I was throwing that out as one item that stuck out of many things which raised suspicion to me and I was basing it on the data I researched. If it's a simple be a case of GIGO[1], then I welcome any FR members to add a correction.
[1]Garbage In Garbage Out
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.