ShareThis Page

Is the morning-after pill just an issue of freedom?

Luis Fábregas
| Saturday, June 15, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

When I needed Sudafed to fight a cold this winter, a pharmacy technician behind the Wal-Mart pharmacy counter demanded my driver's license.

“Not that I think you have a meth lab in your basement,” she added with a smirk.

As if that's what I had in mind when I could hardly breathe.

But the technician was merely following federal law, which requires an ID to buy cold medicines that contain an ingredient called pseudoephedrine. The stuffy nose reliever also can be used to make crystal meth, an addictive drug that can be smoked, snorted or injected.

In the near future, school-aged children will be able to go to the same counter to buy emergency contraception. No ID, no prescription, no questions. That's right, I can't get cold medicine without ID, but tweens could get the morning-after pill without the consent or knowledge of their parents.

If that sounds absurd, it's because access to emergency contraception without a prescription is a very sharp, double-edged sword. The Obama administration reignited debate over the pill this week when it said it will no longer object to the sale of the Plan B One-Step brand of emergency contraception. The administration had previously fought a ruling by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that allowed the pill's availability without a doctor's order.

The inevitable debate that has ensued is highly emotional and filled with so much rhetoric, it's hard to know who's telling the truth. For every fact, there is an argument. For every argument, there is outrage.

Leading doctors, including the influential American Academy of Pediatrics, say the morning-after pill is safe. Critics, however, say high doses of the hormone progestin in the pills have the potential to harm young girls.

Throw in the word abortion, and the debate escalates. For the record, Plan B prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg, and scientists have said it doesn't cause abortion.

My worries about Plan B are far removed from the politics of abortion. It's more about the message this decision is sending society, especially our children. It's almost as if we're saying teenagers are just fine without parental guidance, and we don't need to teach them about the medical and moral issues of sexual behavior.

Those who support the use of the morning-after pill say women should have the right to control their bodies without having to ask a doctor or a pharmacist. True. But if we have the right to control our bodies and ingest drugs without medical advice, why not sell steroids and opioids over the counter? Should we ignore their potentially harmful side-effects simply because we have the right to do whatever we want to our bodies?

One fascinating aspect of Plan B is that while it has the potential to curb unintended pregnancies, it could push up the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. In the United Kingdom, a study found that increased access to Plan B among teens was linked to a higher rate of STDs in that age group.

Perhaps the government's time would be better spent devising a public service campaign using teen entertainment stars to help educate their peers on the issues and risks.

Luis Fábregas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.