Posted on 06/04/2006 5:34:02 AM PDT by Fzob
Thanks for the clarification. I anticipated that fellow FR readers might be closer to the geographic area I cited, and in a followup reply to linda_22003's post I stated I welcomed the clarification.
Weather does have a tendency to be fickle in the area. That's why I posted the links to the weather info I was reading.
Very true! I warned a friend in Alexandria about the heavy weather she was coming into one day in Fairfax, and the sun was out where she was. The towns aren't even ten miles apart.
So you're saying you're too lazy to search to get the information for your own self, like the lazy female lawyer?
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)."
The time constraints were evident. But that issue became moot because: "I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best." She got the results weeks later.
"She's doing it now -- she's writing an editorial to try to help lessen the pointless restrictions on the availability of this contraceptive."
I understood the point of her politicized, religion bashing editorial. But as with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle" in which a pitch for socialism was disguised as an attack on the meat packing industry, she missed her mark. Instead of effectively educating the readers on why the policies worked against people like her who might need this medication, she only succeeded in publicly making a total ass of herself.
"I understood the point of her politicized, religion bashing editorial. But as with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle" in which a pitch for socialism was disguised as an attack on the meat packing industry, she missed her mark. Instead of effectively educating the readers on why the policies worked against people like her who might need this medication, she only succeeded in publicly making a total ass of herself."
I agree. In fact, you can log on to the Washington Post tomorrow and let her know just how loathsome she is, lol. You have to register and then log on to the "discussions".
Per the WP:
"Dana L. will be online Monday, June 5, at noon ET to discuss her Sunday Outlook article and the continuing political debate over the "morning-after" pill that has made Plan-B unavailable to American women."
Unavailable? Who are they kidding? More lies. Also, the "morning after pill" is only 80% effective, according to the following from the Mayo Clinic website, and some studies put it at as low as 75-70% effective. So even if she took it, she would still have a 20-30% chance of being pregnant.
From the Mayo Clinic website:
"The morning-after pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse with a second dose taken 12 hours later. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue and headache. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the morning-after pill is 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy after a single act of unprotected sex."
Ping, or is it bump, lol?
Thank you khnyny. The author could have done more IMO, and she could have shared information like you shared. She didn't, and it just makes me believe that her intent was political, not educational. And maybe you can answer a question for me. Does planned parenthood have doctors who will prescribe the medication she was wanting, and does Planned Parenthood have information on which pharmacies will fill those prescriptions? The reason I ask is that Planned Parenthood evidently has no hesitation to conceal evidence of statutory rape, so why would they be hesitant to steer patients to sources for the "morning after" pill?
I was. Well, we were at the festival on 4/09, anyway, but I can confirm your account of the weather on Saturday the 8'th - it was quite nasty that day, with tornado warnings and heavy rain and the whole nine yards, as I recall. It made the final day of the festival on the 9'th a bit of a disappointment - virtually all the trees had been stripped of their blossoms by the wind and rain the day before, so the last day of the cherry blossom festival was extremely short on actual cherry blossoms ;)
Just figured I'd add to the eyewitness accounts :^)
I heard about this article this morning although I hadn't read it. Unreal and selfish to the extreme. This is really a shocking read and blaming the president for her abortion is really a new low even for the left.
Thanks for the information, and the study citation.
Mrs VS
"Buy Plan B Online
FDA Approved Medication, $20 Refill Order Discount
Express UPS Shipping, US Certified Doctors & Pharmacies" link
It offers overnight air for 15.99.
OK, you got me; I stand corrected one more time.
However, wouldn't the introduction of progesterone too early before the uterine lining forms be a preventive against implantation? After all, the progesterone IUD is in use now. It can't stop ovulation from its position in the uterus, can it?
Sorry if my info was wrong. I actually don't mean to mislead. It's what I had been taught and I'm sorry.
"The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses."
There are competing studies and competing conclusions for sure but there is not a single study anywhere that can conclusively state that Plan B can not effect the endometrium and prevent implantation.
So, when you claim that Plan B is NOT an abortofacient that claim is wrong. It certainly may be and every prospective patient should know just that.
It offers overnight air for 15.99.
This woman was reprehensible...but would YOU buy drugs like this from an Internet scam?
Durand, confirmed the results from earlier studies - there is no change in the thickness of the uterine lining from a single dose of levonorgesrel,
"These results also correlate with the presence of normal histopathological features in endometrial biopsies taken during the implantation window in women from Groups B, C, and D. Indeed, in this study, the process of transformation of endometrium into decidua, as a consequence of endometrial cell differentiation independently of conception occurred normally in women receiving LNG at the time or after the occurrence of LH surge. In this regard, the existence of edematous changes along with development of prominent spiral arteries in LNG-exposed tissues strongly suggest the apparent preservation of endometrial structures thought to be associated with implantation capabilities [45,46]. A successful implantation requires an adequate synchronization between embryo and endometrium development for invasion of spiral arteries by trophoblast cells [47]. These results suggestthat postovulatory contraceptive efficacy of LNG may not involve alterations in the mechanisms associated with endometrial receptivity. A similar conclusion was reached by Raymond et al. [48], where no substantial evidence for the contraceptive effect of the Yuzpe regimen."
Also, the lining in the fallopian tubes is very thin, yet it's capable of sustaining the embryo. In fact, embryos implant in the visceral tissues of the abdomen, at times.
The mini pill is dangerous because it doesn't block ovulation as effectively as the combination oral contraceptives and because, when there is ovulation, the movement of the oocyte and the sperm in the fallopian tube are slowed for a few hours after each dose, resulting in 10 times the normal rate of tubal pregnancies.
However, it doesn't appear that a single dose of progesterone is significant for increasing the risk of tubal pregnancy, probably because of the short window of time that it works to slow cilia motility.
I don't know that it is a scam. I was commenting on how fast a site came up when someone started searching.
I don't believe that it's pointless to require a physician's prescription for drugs. Neither is it pointless to allow medical professionals the right of conscience.
I would have a conference with the internist,the gynecologist and even the midwife (although she or he probably won't have the same "deep pockets" that the docs have) about the risk of medications with insufficient contraceptive protection. Do you suppose that a jury will find in her favor?
Please see my #165.
Jwalsh, the information in the article by Larimore, Stanford, and Kahlenborn predates the reports on the elegant research by Croxottao and Durand.
To all, Freepmail me your email addresses and I'll be glad to forward the articles.
It certainly looks like the LA Times is in sync with the Washington Compost in the timing of their "information", lol. This article appeared today in the LA Times, what a coincidence. How fortunate for all of us that these fine news organizations conspire, I mean, work hard to inform and advise.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fda25may25,0,3259830.story?coll=la-home-nation
I think it is one of the most revolting and ridiculous pieces I've ever read. The WP may have "jumped the shark" on this one. And they wonder why hundreds had to take "early retirement", that really is the funny part.
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.