re: #24 Simply Sarah

One of my issues with your line of argument is that you seem to be saying that the theoretical harm that could be caused by easier access to Plan B is less than the very clear harm caused by making it hard to get. You seem to be saying that since we do a crappy job educating people on good sexual practices, we need to punish those people that haven’t picked up the proper lessons. You seem to want to ignore the older women that this hurts, as well. You seem to want to pretend protection can’t fail.

As I said before, this is some of the same rational I’ve heard for rolling back access to contraceptives and abortion. You may find this statement insulting, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. The pill don’t protect against sexually transmitted infections. Neither do abortions. Yet those both make it “easier” for women to have unprotected sex. Is a proper “holistic” approach to restrict these further for young women, too? Maybe outright ban them?

I apologize that this is so angry and attacking, but I tend to find where you’re going with things extremely dangerous to the health of the very women you’re attempting to protect.

I am sorry you are taking my points in that way. I said earlier that there are no pat answers. My hope was to provide a broadening of the scope of the discussion, not to support any weakening of women’s reproductive choices. I tried to address the concerns you repeat above in my previous answers, so I won’t repeat myself here. You cannot avoid a necessary discussion merely because the line of reasoning may mirror one you disagree with; the methodology for examining cause, effect and potential outcomes has been abused by the anti-choice camp. That does not invalidate the methodology, however. Simply because “Mein Kampf” appeared in book form, does make printing and publishing inherently fascist.

It is not fair of you to expand my argument and take it to a conclusion that is neither logical, nor espoused by myself. Nothing I have said can be mistaken as support for rolling back access to contraception or abortion. Certainly my suggestion that we must consider health outcomes other than pregnancy cannot be interpreted as advocating any kind of ban on abortion or contraception. I understand the emotion bound up in these issues, but do try to be fair.

I have also not advocated accepting Sebelius’ decision as correct. It is important, however, to strip politics out of the debate and focus on health and welfare concerns. Those just happen to go beyond unwanted pregnancy and need to be considered, as well.