Missouri seeks to reclassify Plan B as ‘abortion-inducing.’
By on Feb 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Missouri seeks to reclassify Plan B as ‘abortion-inducing.’
State lawmakers Missouri have introduced a bill to reclassify emergency contraception (Plan B) as “an abortion-inducing medication, contrary to the definition used by the Food and Drug Administration.” The bill would also “protect pharmacies from lawsuits and from punishment by state regulators for refusing to sell or fill a prescription for any drug defined as triggering an abortion.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
THEY CANT DO IT.
Thats like some state deciding that aspirin is now a prescription only drug, or that Oxycontin is a “tool of the Devil” drug.
The FDA sets those laws and regs.
Jesus…
Can we Invade Missouri and liberate their stupid retarded asses?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pmI suppose that Missouri lawmakers are going to claim they know more about a woman’s reproductive system than the Food and Drug Administration.
The sad thing is that if women don’t have access to this drug, it will lead to more REAL abortions.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pmCan we Invade Missouri and liberate their stupid retarded asses?
I suggest that we just leave them alone. If we invade Missouri, we’ll get mired down in an occupation and have to stay there for 100 years.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pmI believe the word is “misclassify” rather than “reclassify.”
February 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pmActually, PLan B is called :
AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION.
IT IS “” EMERGENCY “” CONTRACEPTION.
These stupid Fundamental born again idiots !!
Theyre worried about a 24 to 48 hour old cluster of cells!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you believe they base their voting on THAT?!??
February 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pmCan we retroactively allow these knuckle draggers to secede from the union.?
February 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pmThe Show Me State? Let’s show them the door.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pmTwo sentence explanation for idiots: Abortions, say the National Institutes for Health, end pregnancies. Plan B prevents them from beginning.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pmOkay, let’s educate ourselves, shall we?
First the definition:
Plan B is an emergency contraceptive that can still prevent a pregnancy after contraceptive failure, unprotected sex, or sexual assault.
An abortion is a procedure used to terminate a pregnancy.
Therefore, this proposed legislation is completely false. Let’s hope the fine citizens of Missouri realize this.
Now, we pharmacists are not God. We should never use moral judgment to who can or cannot have a prescription filled (this is different then refusing due to drug interactions or abuse potential).
February 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pmIf this becomes law, then where does it stop. If I can refuse a college girl who was date raped from attaining Plan B, who is to criticize me when I refuse to fill a prescription for an elderly lady who is Jewish, because she may not believe in Jesus?
This is shaky grounds that they are proposing, and I for one do not agree with it. If you can’t fill a patients medicine, then get the hell out of pharmacy, and go picket Planned Parenthood clinics or something.
Just plan on plan D.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pmGeebus, the Joplin faction of the stupid party.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:30 pmState lawmakers Missouri have introduced a bill to reclassify emergency contraception (Plan B) as “an abortion-inducing medication,
Plan B is no more abortion-inducing then condoms. Jimminy Crickets, did the lawmakers of Missouri fail Human Anatomy/Physiology 101?????
February 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pmWhat’s the next logical step? Banning condoms? And when will somebody crack down on the rampant masturbation problem? Every sperm is sacred!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pmfletch~ That would be totally sexist!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pmYou know, if we follow this logic to absurdity, we could claim that a number of prescription medications are “abortion-inducing”, if they can be harmful to the fetus if taken by a pregnant woman.
Can you imagine pharmacists refusing to fill a prescription of anti-migraine drugs for any female who looks like she might be of child-bearing age, on the grounds that she MIGHT be pregnant?
Pharmacists making medical and moral decisions for their customers is ludicrous.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pmAnd when will somebody crack down on the rampant masturbation problem? Every sperm is sacred!
Comment by fletc3her — February 19, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
They day the outlaw masturbation is they day they pry my dikc from my cold dead hands!
Sorry, bad pun for a serious thread
February 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pmhorrible, absolutely atrocious spelling for my post 17.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pmYou get my jest, I hope.
Thank goodness for plan B…can’t tell you how many times it saved my neck.
from a biological point of view, plan B is not abortion. Plan B prevents a fertilized egg ( not an embryo) from attaching to the uterus wall, there by preventing pregnancy, not terminating it.
If the Embryo is already attached and pregnancy has started, then plan B won’t do you any good.
I.E. it’s not an abortion pill
February 19th, 2008 at 2:37 pmComment by DRxJ — February 19, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
My statement about pharmacists not making medical or moral decisions for their customers wasn’t entirely correct. Naturally, a pharmacist should be on the lookout for potentially dangerous situations such as drug interactions. My meaning was that pharmacists shouldn’t necessarily override a patient’s physician.
I realized that I probably sounded like I was dissing pharmacists, when I had no intention of that.
And, of course, nobody in the medical field should be making moral decisions for their patients.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:39 pmIt’s interesting how the “pro-choice†crowd doesn’t want to give pharmacists this choice.
Comment by good_googily— February 19, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
A woman of child bearing years, after 4 kids, cannot have any more children due to health risks during surgery. During an amorous encounter with her husband, the condom breaks. She now has the potential to become pregnant, which could be fatal to her.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pmShe goes to pharmacy A, the only one in town open. Pharmacist refuses to sell her Plan B because of his moral beliefs.
She becomes pregnant, putting her life at risk. And the law (and you) want to protect the pharmacist?
I heard on the news today that a judge found that Pharmacies in Washington state can refuse to dispense this drug if it they find it objectionable.
I wonder what a judge would say if a pharmacist refused to dispense some life-saving drug because for some reason they were morally opposed to that drug or what it treated (like HIV). If a state licenses a pharmacist, they should be required to dispense all legal drugs or get out of the business.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:40 pmTwo sentence explanation for idiots: Abortions, say the National Institutes for Health, end pregnancies. Plan B prevents them from beginning.
Comment by nitpicker
According to these knuckle dragger’s, the minute a sperm says hello to an egg, it’s a pregnancy.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pmIf any pharmacist finds it objectionable to dispense a legal drug, then they are in the wrong business. I hear it’s pretty easy to become an evangelical preacher.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:45 pmThe idiot troll GiGi thinks that we should give pharmacists the “choice” to dispense this particular drug. I would like to give Pharmacists the “choice” to do their job or get the hell out of the profession. I’m sure that the Pharmacist’s license does not say that s/he has the right to dispense legal drugs “as s/he sees fit based on his/her moral beliefs.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pmmissmolly,
No objection here. I agree 100%
bilbobaggins,
February 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pmYes. can you imagine if our daryll of parodyll was a pharmacist.
“sorry sir, I cannot fill your Combivir, because it’s an anti-viral used to attack the AIDS virus, and because you have fornicated in unnatural ways thus resulting in attaining this disease, you’ll just have to wither away and die! Next patient”
Comment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
If we are talking about an urban or suburban area with plenty of pharmacies, I would agree with you that a pharmacy should be able to sell whatever drugs they wish to sell — just as the drugstore it’s attached to can stock whatever inventory they wish (even though I think ALL stores should be forced to stock Reese’s Pieces — they are so darn hard to find sometimes). Patients then patronize the pharmacy that’s able to fill their prescription.
But what about the small town where the only pharmacy available is the local Wal-Mart? If that Wal-Mart refuses to stock a legal drug for “moral” reasons, they have effectively denied women all access to the drug — possibly resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. This is the scenario I object to, unless that woman has an alternative way of getting that drug within the rather tight timeframe she has to work with (perhaps her doctor keeping a supply of the drug handy?).
February 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pmWTF, that the only way I can stay a virgin before my wedding night…please don’t ban that !!!
February 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pmThey must live in a state of missouri if this is at the top of their priorities.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pmThey already have….many churches will tell you that sex is for procreation purposes only….It’s illegal for other purposes
February 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pmt’s only a matter of time before reich-wingers want to make sex illegal.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 19, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
This is correct, and to help Americans resist the urges — in compliance with the law — they’ll market “The Tapper.”
February 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pmThank goodness for plan B…can’t tell you how many times it saved my neck. [...]
Comment by help.me.jebus — February 19, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
i think it’s time – past time, really – for you to find
February 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pman appropriate birth control method… plan b ain’t it, is it?
but glad it was there for you…
February 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pmAccording to these knuckle dragger’s, the minute a sperm says hello to an egg, it’s a pregnancy.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 19, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
They probably also think a blueprint constitutes a building.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pmIf pharmacies do not want to prescribe medications to those with the proper Rx, then those pharmacies should have their licenses revoked. End of story.
Comment by Dr. Matt — February 19, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
actually, pharmacists don’t prescribe, doctors do. Pharmacists make recommendations, and don’t need legal documentation to do so.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pmthat being said, if you are 18 years of age, you no longer need a doctor’s prescription to obtain Plan B. One less hurdle in the limited time frame.
You can bet the old men of the Missouri state legislature would raise hell if it were Viagra being reclassified instead of Plan B. I’m sure there are pharmacists who feel uncomfortable selling recreational sex drugs.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pmkaty
No, but when your wife doesn’t react well to the pill, or any other form of hormone-based contraceptive, then you are restricted to using condoms, which break often.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:59 pmDo you think that Roman Catholic hospital should be forced to perform abortions against its will?
Speaking as one who does not favor abortions, especially if the fetus has a heart beat, the answer to your question (though not addressed to me) is YES, they should. Especially if the woman is in serious danger from the pregnancy.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:00 pmPlan B is nothing more then a high dosage of the traditional hormonal birth control pill. If Plan B was classified as an abortifacient then, by logical classification, all hormonal birth control would have to share that classification. For the past several years, anti-choice groups have argued that the traditional birth control pill is abortive, and have been working to try to control it’s use and distribution. This is simply the first, in many many, initiatives to come to outlaw oral contraception, and remove reproductive control from the hands of women.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pmWhat if there is only one hospital in town and it is a Roman Catholic hospital. Do you think that Roman Catholic hospital should be forced to perform abortions against its will?
Comment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Apples and oranges. The time frame for getting an abortion is far greater than getting Plan B contraception in an emergency, and you know it.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:02 pmShould they be forced to treat protestants, jews, or atheists?
February 19th, 2008 at 3:05 pmFortunately, the law does not agree with you on this one.
Comment by good_goony— February 19, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
thank you for proving my point. A slowly developing fetus’ potential life is more important to you (and Missouri lawmakers) than it’s mother, who happens to have a husband, and six children of her own to take care of.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pmAgain, why does the right care so much for the fetus, but couldn’t give a damn about it once it’s born?
#50 – “Again, why does the right care so much for the fetus, but couldn’t give a damn about it once it’s born?” Comment by DRxJ — February 19, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Wedge-issues are what the right lives for. You know, like gay marriage, abortion, illegal wiretapping, shredding the constitution based on the false fear of WMD’s.
It’s a way to drive the opposition apart in order to shoe-horn their own candidates and other bad laws that would never be considered otherwise. It’s a great tactic, as Pres. Bush’s
February 19th, 2008 at 3:10 pm“brain” has proven.
Goony – why don’t you do everyone a favor and crawl back under your rock…? Your stupid Repuke talking points are beyond old and stinky.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pmYou know, if the so-called “pro-life” crowd was so interested in allowing pharamacies the “choice” to no offer sales of this drug, then why don’t they allow internet sales by companies that wish to sell the drug?
The “anti-choice” “pro-lifers” want to eliminate any choice but the one’s they want available. Theocracy, thy name is “pro-life”!
February 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm49. Actually, I don’t believe they are. As private institutions they can choose to treat whomever they please – outside of emergency care. Of course, the government can/will withold funds if a protected class (race, religion, ethnicity) is discriminated against. But, this does not bar them from witholding treatment. In the early 80s, I recall a number of Catholic hospitals refusing AIDS patients.
The question which arises is, if a woman in distress from an ectopic pregnancy arrives in a Catholic emergency room, would the hospital be required to perform the abortion or would they place the woman at severe risk of internal bleeding, infection and death.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:15 pmAll I can say is that I hope whomever votes to pass this idiotic bill doesn’t have to go through a situation where one of their family members might need this pill.
Don’t these people ever think things through before the react?
February 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pmComment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Then the right must stop sending 18-19 year-olds, for example, to die in unjust wars. Iraq is not listed in the handbook “Good Reasons to Send Our Men and Women into Harms Way”.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pm#59: So if the woman has no chance of survival but the baby does, you’re saying that the babies mother should die right?
Man, that’s some head hurtin’ logic right there.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pmComment by IgnoranceIsNotBliss — February 19, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
The reich’s solution would be a “family values” one: Throw the pregnant daughter to the street.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:39 pm*baby’s
February 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pmComment by McWars — February 19, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Yup.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pmRepublicans love the little children – right up until they are born. After they are born – Republicans could not care less about human life, or any life for that matter.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pm#67 – “Republicans love the little children – right up until they are born. After they are born – Republicans could not care less about human life, or any life for that matter.” Comment by StratRat — February 19, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
That is so NOT true! I’d re-post the super-long list of Republican pedophiles, but I think you get the point.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pmComment by Democrat Soldier — February 19, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
you’re right, soldier. gg is a strong defender of conservative pedophillia.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pmComment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502002.html
friend of yours gg?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:10 pmI care about children, both pre-delivery and post-delivery.
Comment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
that’s a lie.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:26 pmThe moral issue is difficult, but pretty straight forward, even in a Catholic hospital.
http://www.geocities.com/ seapadre_1999/ ectopicpregnancy.html
Comment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
well, then, the catholic hospital refusing an abortion on demand is hypocritical.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pmNo, but when your wife doesn’t react well to the pill, or any other form of hormone-based contraceptive, then you are restricted to using condoms, which break often.
Comment by help.me.jebus — February 19, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
“often”? … wow…
but, as for your situation, please excuse my ignorance…
there are always exceptions…
are IUDs back on the market? i loved mine… the copper7…
the diaphram, not so much, but it works when used…
the b.c. pill didn’t agree with me either…
did i hear correctly, isn’t plan b rather expensive?
February 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pmNot always. What if it is one of those situations in which the life of the mother is in danger?
Comment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
If the mother was truly in danger to the point where she could not be transferred elsewhere, I would hope that even a Catholic hospital wouldn’t allow her to die merely to save a first-trimester fetus. Or even a second-trimester one. And if the pregnancy was late-term, I would imagine that there would be an attempt to save both the mother and child by delivering the child prematurely.
But I think your question was “should the hospital be REQUIRED to abort in order to save the life of the mother?”
Yes — I think when it comes down to having to choose between the fetus and the mother, the hospital should be required to save the mother. The idea of hospital personnel sitting idly by and “putting the situation in God’s hands” is insane.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm72. Why?
Comment by good_golly — February 19, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
you are really as stupid as you sound, aren’t you?
February 19th, 2008 at 5:44 pmWell, Goebbels said lie big. They CAN’T be so stupid as to not understand the word contraceptive. They are hoping their constituents are…
February 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pmExcept that it doesn’t induce abortions. In fact, there’s a warning label clearly on Plan B medications that say “do not take if pregnant because it will not work.” That’s not a misstatement. It doesn’t induce abortion!
From Wikipedia: “Morning-after pills (ECPs) are not to be confused with the “abortion pillâ€, otherwise known as RU486, mifestone, or Mifeprex. According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “EC is not an abortifacient because it has its effect prior to the earliest time of implantation.†Since they act before implantation, they are considered medically and legally to be forms of contraception.” [Emphasis added.]
Of course, this won’t be the first time fundies try to redefine science because they disagree with it… And it won’t be the last.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:10 pmOften? My god, what brand are you using? How old are they? Do you know how to put them on correctly? Do you use lubrication? Jeez. I never had one break ever when I used them. And since then, I’ve been snipped – the ultimate birth control! The wifey and I love the not having to ever worry!
February 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm