Doesn't really surprise you they do though?

And if it isn't knowingly? Pharmacies in states where it isn't a requirement to hire certified techs hire people off the street at not much above minimum wage and they "hit the ground running", answering phones and handling other duties before they're even trained. So if incorrect information is given out inadvertently, blame management. They'll pay the pharmacists $100k a year and the techs are part-time, no benefits, less than $10 an hour.

Just another person trying to play God. Unreal.

if your moral beliefs interfere with your ability to do your job correctly, you need a new career.

Ah but evangelicals will argue they shouldn't be forced to give out this medication because of their beliefs.

In my opinion, they should have to support any children born due to their lack of giving the medication properly.

Ah but evangelicals will argue they shouldn't be forced to give out this medication because of their beliefs.

If you're religious convictions are so strong that you cannot dispense medicine required by the general public, then you should pick a different profession. A conscientious objector shouldn't become a volunteer solider and then refuse to fight. There is no draft for pharmacists. If you don't like prescribing birth control or any other medication type, find a different job!

Surprised? We will continue to be bludgeoned by cross wielding ideologues until we punish them at the polls and stop buying goods and services from them. I've got my list of businesses I will not do business with.

If your religion does not allow you to do your job then you should get a different job. Why should anyone be denied medication because the person dispensing it goes to a church that says it's wrong. Leave your religion at home where it belongs and out of the live of others. Someone who refuses to dispense medications that are requested and not illegal should be fired on the spot.

Pharmacists, doctors and lawmakers should keep their 'moral values' to themselves and do thier jobs without religious bias inflicted on others.

The article didn't say anything about the Pharmacists or Techs using religion as a way to not answer questions honestly.

I do not like cigarettes, so I should not apply for a job at Phillip Morris then complain that making cigarettes goes against my beliefs.

If I have a moral objection to guns, I should not work at a gun shop.

If I am against alcohol, a liquor store is not the best place for me to seek employment.

If I am against the selling of pornographic magazines, I should not work at a store which sells them.

If I do not wish to remove my clothing and have my photo taken, I should not apply to be a playboy playmate.

If your morals interfere with your ability to do your job, you need to find another job.

Also, if a teenager is getting plan b, it probably means she has already had sex (which is really what they would be saying she is too young for.) So essentially, they are saying she is too young to have sex-but apparently old enough to be pregnant?

Tiggle. If a teen asked if they could buy NyQuill do you think they would be "mis-informed" 43 percent of the time as to their legal right to buy it?

Let's get real; what we have here are people being asked a direct question related to something that is public knowledge related to the function of their employer's business and about which the pharmacies know very well teens are going to request information, and somehow - gee wilkers - are managing to give false information 43 percent of the time.

Anyone out there who thinks this is all innocent accident is extremely gullible and/or pretending that they can't see the truth.

I went to get the plan b pill one day. I am over 17 and been married for 10 years. I went to the local Right Aid, I was treated so badly. 1st they wanted to know who my doctor was, then wanted my ID,after proving my age they called 3 other people over to question if i could get it or not,while making rude comments quietly between themselves. The Pharmacist said to the tech that if people do not want babies they should not be spreading there legs. I was embarrassed, then I got angry & left w/o it. I had my Dr call in a script elsewhere and no issues. I filed a written complaint against the pharmacist and he is no longer employed with them.This happens to all people not just teens.We as a society have become accustom to taking it and moving on and complaining to everyone around us.Put in the effort when you are treated badly, go up the chain of command eventually you will get results. Typically you will need to go above the manager of the establishment to a district rep or State. It is amazing how fast you will get results. Most on site managers already know what is going on so it does no good to tell them. But when you ask for the number for their boss watch how fast they squirm...Good Luck

Folks, (especially you younger, female folks):

It costs around a quarter million dollars to raise a child to age 18 in the USA. Throw in another $100K for a middle of the road education and launching of a kid, and voila....good bye a third of a million bucks.

An employee of a pharmacy that is withholding legally prescribed medication must always be held responsible for their actions, so the company they work for, (and their malpractice insurance carrier), should be raising these children....perhaps that will straighten things out.

This does not of course cover the cost of young lives redirected to probable low income status for life in order to spend over 20 years slaving away to raise the child, (or more than one life if the involved father and his family members take financial responsibility in this commonplace tragedy). Usually this best case scenario of a difficult outcome does not take place, however, and we find that society ends up paying for the inadequate care that these unfortunate children end up receiving as their lot in life. This is the perfect set up to recharge the same behavior, and thus recycle the problem and the cost to society forever.

Way to go you self satisfied, ultra-religious, pharmacy techs, you would think you would learn a little bit more in two years in community college, like how you are not infallible, and how you are there to serve the medical needs of society without judgement.

Calling all lawyers...Get ready, Get set, Go....get those class action lawsuits smokin'.

What a mess!

Thank you for taking the time Incorrigible to delineate your experience. Sadly, we live in a world filled with people happy to inflict their nasty, narrow-mindedness on others; people who think that just because they are happy to let a dogmatic religion, that is far better at fostering and protect pedophiles than fostering true devotion to God, says they should not have abortions everybody should do the same.

You are right; if this kind of crap is going to stop people are going to have to start going after the upper echelons of the pharmacies executive management, and force them to make it very clear that the penalty for handing out false information as well as trying to impose their narrow, self-righteous opinions on the store's clients is grounds for immediate dismissal - with a zero tolerance level in place.

If they can't feel good about speaking the truth working there - then they should find another job.

I'm glad you got what you needed Incorrigible. I can't help but ask why you didn't ask to speak with a store manager right away, while you were there? I know not everyone is confrontational but if a pharmacist was denying me my right a prescription drug and making rude comments, he/she would have a much bigger problem on their hands.

But good for you for getting him fired. I'm glad you followed up on the incident!

moma said there will be days like this.......

I would like to know which cities they tested. MSNBC needs to do a better job on the who, what, when, where, why and how.

They probably don't teach that any longer...

Ph I live in a small community where most of the establishments do not have a long chain of command. In this case when I asked to talk to the manager, the assistant laughed and said OK let me get my brother. Sometimes you have to go outside the immediate business to find someone that isn't emotionally attached to get things fixed. But I agree when possible that should be first line. It is hard in smaller communities to find unbiased people to listen when you have anything negative to say about a coworker or subordinate. Also with a smaller community the businesses know your choices are limited and in some cases you only have one option.

I understand. How unfortunate. Good for you for sticking to your guns in the end!

Laura-2060814 said:

And if it isn't knowingly? Pharmacies in states where it isn't a requirement to hire certified techs hire people off the street at not much above minimum wage and they "hit the ground running", answering phones and handling other duties before they're even trained. So if incorrect information is given out inadvertently, blame management.

Here's the thing: if someone doesn't know the answer to a question, they shouldn't answer it. Too many people answer questions incorrectly because they didn't know the answer, but for some reason felt compelled to answer it (again, incorrectly). Perhaps they just want to appear to be in control and knowledgeable?

Saying they didn't know the answer is no excuse for giving out incorrect information. It is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know, but I'll ask someone who does."

I have worked in situations where I was asked a question to which I had no answer. I could have given the wrong information, and washed my hands by saying that it was the management's fault that I gave incorrect information, but instead I asked someone who knew the answer.

If it makes any difference, I've gone to a couple different Walgreens without issues.

I think Laura has a point at that rate it could be that they techs don't really know. Maybe they assume 18 is the cutoff age as it is for lots of medications that are over the counter but regulated (like cold medicine for example) . You are talking about retail employees who may be just trying to be conscientious.

If employees are giving out wrong information about one drug simply out of ignorance, then they're probably giving out wrong info on other drugs, too. Should be easy to find out if there's a pattern to the misinformation or not.

If a tech doesn't handle the pseudoephedrine correctly, making sure that there's a prescription, etc., they will be disciplined, up to and including firing.

lolwut-3168979

If it makes any difference, I've gone to a couple different Walgreens without issues.

Yikes! A few times?!?!?! Did you finally figure out what was causing you to keep almost getting pregnant?

Incorrigible and Stoops2Conquer,

Unfortunately, I foresee more instances of this behavior in the future. This has become a charged issue with both the Roman Catholic and fundamentalist churches. And while neither, or even both in conjunction, may not be a majority in any locale, they have large voices and histories of preaching boycotts from their pulpits. Further, they insist that their adherents carry the church rule beyond their personal and family life, and into the business and political sphere. Just like ultra conservative mullahs can dictate life to Muslims in some countries, these 'Christians' will try to dictate their view of morality on us, our sons and our daughters.

If there are intentional instances of misinformation, obviously that's not acceptable. However, the laws have made things very complicated in a pharmacy. 18 for cough syrup, 17 for Plan B, ID and signatures for pseudophedrine... We've legislated in another layer of confusion.

Another stupid MSNBC article about 15 people in the world.

justoneguy

Another stupid MSNBC article about 15 people in the world.

Then why are you here? You know you don't like it. You come here anyway. Then you bitch. Go.

This study needs to go farther... like mid-west versus coast... metro versus rural...

This needs national attention and it needs to be corrected NOW!

tiggle, if you can't put 2 and 2 together then you're a perfectly suited candidate for religion.

First of all, this article is intended to make it seem that religion has played a role in not getting Plan B. Many times, it has to do with a child's ID. Not too many children have ID that they can use at a pharmacist counter. The majority of 17 year olds do look young for their age and often times, pharmacists know what could happen to them if they give drugs to someone who is not of age. I remember myself being carded for alcohol because the clerk did not think I was 21 when I was well over 30. That fact is true in any store.

Secondly, not every pharmacy has every drug at that time in that store. You guys act like you never had to wait for a prescription to come in. I've had pharmacists call around other places looking for a specific drug simply because they did not have it. Something else the article failed to mention.

unhappy, there's a difference between you can't have that drug and we don't have that drug. as for id, they were told they couldn't have the medication at all, not cause they couldn't provide id.

Unhappy-1583758 at #1.32

If you had read the article, you would have understood that no ID was presented because these surveys were conducted over the phone. The researchers presented themselves OVER THE PHONE as 17 year olds seeking Plan B or as doctors of a 17 year old patient. When the researcher asked if the pharmacy had the drug, 80% of the pharmacies did. This was not about a pharmacy not carrying the drug or teens looking young for their age or not having an ID. It was about supposed experts/providers in their field providing erroneous information. "Personal beliefs" may play a part in it, but mostly it just brings attention to the fact that correct information is not being provided. Honestly, did you read the article? Skimming doesn't count if you miss all the facts and post comments that directly contradict what was reported.

Marvell, this is why I'm more spiritual than religious now. I believe there's something out there but I don't allow it to dictate everything else in my life, unlike these pharmacists.

Incorrible, I applaud you for standing up for yourself.

I've read countless news articles this year involving people trying to withhold birth control or criticizing contraceptives in general. It needs to stop. Politicians and religious zealots don't have the right to tell us as women what we're allowed to do with our bodies.

My friend even has a pin that says "Keep your laws off my body". They need to keep their beliefs off our bodies too.

And pay a fine to cover costs of any unwanted pregnancies that they caused.

And pay a fine to cover costs of any unwanted pregnancies that they caused.

Correction: unless they had sex with the person, they did not cause the unwanted pregnancy. They caused the failure to abort.

If they cause the failure to abort, in contrast to the above poster, it is their direct fault for the pregnancy continuing (not getting into issues where the drug could fail though).

Yeah, I remember when some states where passing these so-called "conscientious objector" laws a few years back. I also recall at the time that there were recruiting efforts going on by the extremist anti-birth control nuts to try and get their ilk to major in pharmacology so they could specifically refuse to fill those prescriptions. Pretty sick.

Anyone would have a pretty hard time proving for a fact that taking Plan B would have definitively prevented a pregnancy. True, it's likely that taking it would have, but I believe you'd have a difficult time making a legal argument that the pharmacist is ultimately responsible and should be fined. A similar concept: if you are a cancer patient and need chemo, which has the side effect of causing a lot of nausea, and you did not recieve any type of anti-emetic, can you prove that if you had taken the anti-emetic that you would not have experienced any nausea or vomiting? This is far from a perfect example, I realize, but drugs aren't magic. If you have sex, you might get pregnant - even if you are taking contraceptives, even if you use contraception of any other type, and -gasp- even if you take Plan B. It does not prevent pregnancy 100% of the time.

Also, if a pharmacist objects to dispensing a medication based on rights of conscience, he/she is obligated to let another pharmacist at the same pharmacy fill the prescription, or refer the patient to another pharmacy where he/she can obtain the medication. If you have issues or concerns regarding these laws, then contact your state legislators to express your concerns.

I also find interesting the use of the term "abort" - since that's what so many people claim Plan B never does. I suppose that depends on your definition of when life/pregnancy begins.

Boom,

Correction; Plan B does not cause abortions, it prevents the egg from planting to the uterine wall.

I was thinking the same. Once they are on the hook for all costs associated with raising the child, they will probably not make that "mistake" again.

Have any of you even thought the teenager is having unprotected sex and STDs are rampant among teenagers !

Maybe the parents need to know so they can protect their children from the effects of STDs ?

Tallman

Your deflecting. The point is that it has already happened and something needs to be done to keep another unwanted child off the welfare rolls. And let some poor girl grow up so she can give a child the care and love that an adult that wants the child can give.

Have any of you even thought the teenager is having unprotected sex and STDs are rampant among teenagers !

That is irrelevant. Withholding Plan B has no effect on STD transmission. Stay focused.

tallman

The reason 17 year old young women are allowed to get this medication is so they can be in charge of their own bodies. Their parents don't need to know, this has all been hashed out long ago. And if the parents are at all good at parenting, they already know their child is having sex, and long before this have given information on STD's to their children.

Of course many young people have learned these things in sex education classes in school..........but will no longer due to the Republican right foisting their religious beliefs on public education.

I guess if you can't be a pharmacist..........be a politician, then you can stick your nose wherever it doesn't belong.

Hmm, moral beliefs huh? I wonder if I can become pharmacist and deny insulin to type 2 diabetics that got their diabetes stuffing their face with crap since I have a moral objection to people stuffing their faces with crap. Give false information, pay for the delivery of the child. Period. Perhaps when people have a personal stake in the decisions they make they will refrain from butting into other peoples business.

Blame republicans...blame republicans...blame republicans.

It is about 100X more likely they did not give out the medication because of strict, vague, complicated rules and very worrisome liability laws.

This is your typical stupid mainstream media at work. Report on a story, don't report on the reasons why and let the idiots in the comment section make their assumptions. The media knows what typical idiots will carry away from a very vague and misleading piece of trash.

I know someone who works in a pharmacy and it is a very stressful job. They don't really have the time to be making political decisions on what they hand out. It is a highly regulated and controlled process and they still make mistakes.

Stupid, stupid, stupid article....Does it even state where this "investigation" took place because I didn't see it.

The state of today's media is a f'n joke. I love undercover investigations but they should be followed up with questioning of the pharmacy tech/pharmacist as to why they believed the drug couldn't be administered to a 17 year old.

Knee jerk whining about republicans...give me a break.

Some people at a cash register don't even know how to scan coupons correctly. Maybe they don't like your brand of tampon because the CEO donated to Obama!!! Conspiracy!

Liberals are sounding more and more like nutty Ron Paul cult members.

WillJenk: If they don't have the time to be making political decisions on what they hand out, why do they then insist on the "conscience exception" that allows them to impose their own personal moral values on the customers they are licensed by the state to serve??

There are not that many medications that have an age cut-off. In fact, I cannot think of many outside of the cold medication that can be used to make meth and Plan B. How hard can it be to remember--especially given that the cold medication thing is so strictly enforced?

A girl is above the age of consent (in most states) at 17--that is why 17 is the present cut-off (it really should be 16 for Plan B in those states where age of consent is 16--but they probably picked 17 as it is between the 16 to 18 age of consent). If a person is above the age of consent, then that person can consent, and pregnancy is a possibility.

Plan B is used because most of those people have sex only very rarely. Teens and 20s aren't nearly as sexually active as people think they are. Thus, they do often rely on Plan B as their contraceptive because it is available over the counter and they really have sex so rarely that they don't think they need continuous protection. It is crazy that most contraceptives--other than Plan B--aren't also available over the counter. Motrin and Tylenol, as well as other medications, are available over the counter and represent a far greater threat to one's health.

More importantly, pharmacy and OB/GYN are fields which the conservatives are trying to flood with other conservatives. It is virtually impossible in my neck of the woods to find a non-conservative pharmacist or OB/GYN. If they can pass their conscience exception (which also prevents any need to refer), then they can prevent both contraceptive use as well as emergency contraceptive use (and abortion). They are, by the by, also flooding the teaching profession with conservative females.

This is all really annoying. Young women do not need to be having babies--it is bad for their health--but it is completely their own choice whether or not to have sex. The whole idea that sex is somehow dirty or immoral is just bizarre to me. Sex with a partner with whom one is monogomous is neither dirty nor immoral--it's normal. People are just odd.

It is crazy that most contraceptives--other than Plan B--aren't also available over the counter. Motrin and Tylenol, as well as other medications, are available over the counter and represent a far greater threat to one's health.

Have you ever thought of condoms? I mean that is what it is there for.

Unhappy: ever thought of a condom breaking or having a tiny hole in it?

Exactly. "It’s also possible that the misinformation was given on purpose by pharmacy employees who didn’t want to dole out morning-after pills to 17-year-olds." I know for a fact that this sort of thing happens with other medications too. I have a friend who was refused birth control pills - which were prescribed for her following the removal of both ovaries due to cancer, to prevent osteoporosis - because the pharmacy tech, unaware of her condition AND the fact that she's single, decided to refuse her service and inform her that a woman her age SHOULD be having children.

because the pharmacy tech, unaware of her condition AND the fact that she's single, decided to refuse her service and inform her that a woman her age SHOULD be having children.

Did she report the Tech?

Jim, you clearly have no idea how the female reproductive system works.

A fertilized egg does not implant into a woman's uteris until about 1-2 wks after the initial sexual act. The fertilized ovum must then travel through the fallopian tubes and burrow into the lining of the uteris, which is often unsuccessful anyway. Therefor a woman is not 'pregnant' until the embryo has managed to implant itself. Also, a male sperm can live in a female body for around a week before fertilization even takes place.

Plan B is NOT an abortion pill because in order for there to be an abortion there must first be a pregnancy. Learn your facts.

And because Jim doesn't understand the female reproductive system, he should not be allowed to use it.

And yet, men like Jim are making the laws regulating women's reproductive and health issues.

Raised,

besides other more obvious reasons.

Jim C. For the sake of reason, have yourself neutered.

Pregnancy does not exist until the embryo implants. Ergo this is no more abortion than throwing out an IVF embryo.

It's a cell, not a baby.

You really need to get educated about what this does. You have absolutely no idea.

How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg.

If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work and pregnancy proceeds normally.

yes, just like a loofa pad kills cells when you wash with it. The next morning after sex you have a group of cells dividing, if you think it can live outside the womb and is a human life then you can adopt it and and keep it on your dresser in a test tube and name it bob.

Sperm is potential human life, maybe the religious extremists should start a crusade to outlaw masturbation, charge a man with 1 billion counts of murder every time a glob of sperm hits the bathroom wall. You can have masturbation police that run around with black lights looking for sperm splatters.

You are 100% wrong. The morning after pill prevents the egg from latching on so it gets sloughed away along with the uterine wall lining during the menstrual cycle.

I learned this in grade 9 but I guess you didn't make it that far.

Well I'm a chemist and I can tell you that you are wrong. Plan B is not an abortion pill, it will not end a current pregnancy and it actually stops fertilization (not implantation). Emergency contraceptives on the market usually contain D-norgestrel or l-norgestrel which is the same active ingredient in norplant and IUDs with hormones. They work by preventing the sperm and egg from meeting or inhibit or delay an egg from being released from the ovaries if taken before ovulation. Therefore, there is no 'fertilized egg.' When you look at the arguments of the religious right against contraception, this is actually an ideal 'backup birth control' because the egg is actually never fertilized. These chemicals have no effect on the endometrium and will not prevent implantation and will not harm an implanted embryo. So stop listening to mis-information and educate yourself.

If you are truthful in your comment then Thank You. I am pro-life, but I do not have anything against birth control and unless the morning after actually does not murder a baby that has been concieved then I am ok with that. However that being said I believed that life begins at conception.

Plan B is not an abortion pill, it will not affect a fertilized egg that has implanted into the uterine wall. Ask the many women who took Plan B and went on to have babies! A little too late!

Pregnancy DOES NOT occur until a fertilized egg has been implanted into the uterine wall. Many women get 'false positives' on pregnancy tests - these occur when a fertilized egg does not implant. This is not a miscarriage, it was never a pregnancy to begin with....to actually have a pregnancy many things have to occur in the body at the right time. Its truly an amazing thing that we seem to know so little about.

If Pharmacists don't understand how the Morning After Pill works they shouldn't be working in the Health field. If they do understand how the Morning After Pill works they are purposely refusing to fill what is legal, and imposing their morality, such as it is, on patients, and should be brought to court on it as a Professional Group.

@everyone-5471391

Too bad there isn't a pill that can prevent stupidity...it might have helped you and prevented an unwanted asinine comment...

Caligula - why make personal attacks? If you have information, just say it without name calling please.

This is from WebMD on how the Plan B pill works:

"Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg.

If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work and pregnancy proceeds normally."

So yes, sometime the egg is prevented from being fertilized, other times it is fertilized and is effectively killed by not being allowed to implant. If you have some superstition about life beginning anytime other then conception, you can take that up with science.

Yes, but that is all beside the point. These people don't really care about potential humans, not really. What they care about is the idea that access to the morning after pill might encourage some young women to have sex at all. And goodness knows there is nothing worse than a sexually active girl/woman. That's what this is really about. Potential babies are a smoke screen. They want to control the behavior of girls/women by limiting access to the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies if they have the temerity to have sex in the first place. It just sounds better if they say it is about the "babies" and not control.

Do I think 17 year olds should be having sex... not particularly, in most cases... but I also understand it is their body and their right to decide what to with it. 17 is over the age of consent. Period. If they make the choice to have sex, they should have all access to the tools to do it responsibly.

It's not really beside the point. I'm being told to educate myself on how it works so I quote a reputable source that supports what I said.

And it is about life and not about control for most pro-lifers. I can't speak for all but that has been my impression of other pro-lifers. In any case, that's what it is about for me.

This is not a discussion about "potential life", there is a unique human created at the moment of conception. This can be verified with DNA - it is human and it is a separate being from the parents. Let's keep superstition out of this please.

Jerry . . . why should anyone care what you believe? I wish you and your family well with your lives.

But . . . GET OUT OF MY LIFE. You have not walked where I've walked, not lived what I've live, and you have not earned the right to make family or medical decisions for me or my family. How dare you think that you have a say in any one else's decisions.

The problem with christian zealots is that they impose themselves on others . . often loaded with inaccurate or incorrect biology/medical facts. Your god would be horrified at your arrogance and your absence of humility. If he makes regular decisions to abort failed fetuses, if he takes away life from defective organisms, does he harshly judge men who mimic that same behavior. Confusing, eh?

This is not a discussion about "potential life", there is a unique human created at the moment of conception. This can be verified with DNA - it is human and it is a separate being from the parents. Let's keep superstition out of this please.

If we are arguing "life" then my appendix is also alive. If you are pinning it on the uniqueness of the DNA, then a fully divided embryo (identical twin) is not "alive". Also, an cancer cell is alive since it's DNA is unique.

Face it, we are not arguing when something is "alive" we are arguing when something is given the rights that we provide people. A human embryo is virtually the same as a chimp embryo, and until PCR was invented we were unable to tell the difference between the two until late in gestation.

Why should an embryo be afforded the same rights as a full term baby? For that matter, why shouldn't my appendix be afforded the same rights as a first term fetus, or a tumor, or a far more advanced puppy, or an unfertilized human egg?

If you are going to wade into what is "alive" and rely upon science for the definition of life rather than get to the actual question of when an embryo should be afforded human rights, then expect the hard questions.

Science of DNA can prove the facts that it is alive, is human, is a unique self contained individual. You may not like the truth but making excuses (silly comparisons with cancer cells) doesn't change the fact that human life begins at conception.

So, everyone, would you be willing to adopt the fertilized egg? Or fund the care of the baby, providing the fertilized egg does attach to the womb and become a baby?

Did you know that women unknowingly pass fertilized eggs all the time because fertilized eggs don't always attach to the womb? Even if this is a natural occurrence, would you hold that woman responsible for involuntary manslaughter?

Plan B is not the abortion pill!!!

It is emergency contraception. It prevents conception. No baby is conceived. No pregnancy exists.

However, you deny people plan b, soon they will be looking for the abortion pill-which definately ends a pregnancy. Is that what you would prefer?

If you are against something-fine. But at least be know what you are talking about before you say you are against it!

PH

Q1: yes

Q2: yes

Q3: no

Science of DNA can prove the facts that it is alive, is human, is a unique self contained individual. You may not like the truth but making excuses (silly comparisons with cancer cells) doesn't change the fact that human life begins at conception

I did not argue that there is human life in a fertilized egg. However, an unfertilized egg is alive, scientifically speaking, and it's DNA comes from a human, so are all eggs worthy of protection?

Cancer cells are alive. They often have unique DNA and are human. They can even grow and exist in a bio-reactor (unlike an embryo). Why not provide them the same protection?

Until you can reasonably differentiate, your arguments fail logically. The issue is not if it is alive scientifically, but whether it is a "life" like we consider a human... call it person-hood, or sentient life, etc. However, the argument is far more complex than your basic understanding allows for.

uchusky - see my quote of WebMD above - unless your saying that is not a reliable source.

Science of DNA can prove the facts that it is alive, is human, is a unique self contained individual. You may not like the truth but making excuses (silly comparisons with cancer cells) doesn't change the fact that human life begins at conception.

Ignorant BS. The embryo cannot exist outside the womb, and in the case of what Plan B affects, has not even attached. Therefore it may never attach, even without Plan B. The greatest aborter of all is God (miscarriages).

Until it can survive outside the womb its nothing more than a parasitic entity, not a human being.

Ok, thanks for answering honestly, everyone. I am glad you would be willing to put your money where your mouth is.

But, it is true that women pass fertilized eggs all the time. It is never a guarantee that a fertilized egg will implant in the womb and, when it doesn't, it just exits the body like any other cell. If you want to believe that life starts at conception, that is fine, but the definition of conception should really be when it implants because that is when the opportunity is really granted for the cell to become a fetus.

When women take time to get pregnant it's usually because the fertilized cells aren't implanting. If it was a guarantee every time, women would get pregnant much more frequently.

Engesq - unfertilized eggs are not unique individuals - they still only have the mothers DNA and will not progress in growing - I can only explain so much here - If you really don't understand what makes cancer cells different from a human being, that is beyond the scope of this format of education.

everybody. Basically what I hear from you is the potential to develop into a viable human is what differentiates an embryo from cancer cells and a number of other examples. So answer me why we should provide more rights to a ball of undifferentiated cells merely because of it's potential?

You continually dance around the issue. Sure an embryo is human life, under a strict scientific definition, but so are a number of cells from a number of sources. The only true differentiation you have implied it it's potential. And the potential for something does not afford something human rights.

It may not look like what you think a human looks like, but that's just what all humans look like when they first come into existence. Just so I can understand your point of view, when do you think that clump of cells becomes human?

Every cell in the universe is "alive". If you're so worried about destroying cellular life, stop taking showers...

everyone, a fertilized egg is human to me (not A human, but human based). As is a cancer cell. I don't afford either the rights I'd grant a person.

I personally see a developing human as achieving enough complexity by 26 weeks of gestation to be afforded rights. I base this upon ability to react to stimulus, neurological development and physiological ability to register pain (even though the anesthetized state of the brain cannot perceive it at this stage).

However, this is my opinion, and reasonable minds can differ on this topic. As such, I feel it necessary to provide the choice to the mother as long as the fetus is incapable of existing apart from the woman. Viability is an fine compromise in my opinion.

It just galls me to weigh an early fetus and claim it the equivilent as a developed human.

With advances in science, viability gets younger and younger.

I don't agree with all your points but I respect your opinion.

It would be nice to discuss topics without the unproductive comments and insults. Too bad they don't have an age requirement or some sort of standards in these discussions.

Viability does become younger continually. Laws may need to change at some point, but again you are looking at the potential of an issue, rather then it's condition in the moment. Under current technology, and at least for the next decade, viability is a fine compromise.

Secondly, I find it funny in arguing that you wish this discussion could be without insults you throw out a comment implying that people who disagree with you are juvenile, or don't meet some "other standard" (i.e. intelligence or education). That is rather hypocritical.

Sperm is potential human life, maybe the religious extremists should start a crusade to outlaw masturbation,

Gee, thanks, WyomingLiberal. When this appears in Santorum's campaign plank, I'll know who to blame!

I guess I'm a hypocrite then.

I think we all are sometimes (hypocrites that is).

Everyone: Regardless of your religious beliefs, life can not begin at conception. There are many, many, many fertilized eggs that do not implant, therefore do not result in pregnancy. A fertilized egg can not grow a baby on its own. If people want to say that life begins at implantation, at least I can find that point somewhat arguable, but it takes both implantation and fertilization to result in a viable pregnancy....a fertilized egg cannot wander around the uterus and continue to grow. And a fertilized egg does not have 100% chance of implantation even without Plan B.

viability becomes younger and younger but at a extreme cost. I am not saying that should not be explored but given the other things going on in health care maybe another time might be more appropriate .

U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report ...

Infant Mortality in the United States, 1935-2007

Oddly, life beginning at conception is actually a modern concept. Jews have that human live begins at birth for millennia. Christ would have known, and probably professed, this view. And the biblical fate for out-of-wedlock pregnancy was stoning to death of the pregnant woman.

The Spartans and some Native Americans practiced "exposure", exposing the newborn to the elements for some 12-24 hours before acknowledging the child. (The newborn was typically protected by a guard from predators, and often wrapped or placedunder a natural cover; but otherwise unattended and not fed).

And these attitudes did not follow from ignorance. All were familiar with animal husbandry. But they did reflect either strict societal needs for "righteous heirs" of name and property, or societal needs for strong children able to contribute and not be burdensome to the society.

Everyone 5471391. You make a perfect argument FOR birth control. What is your I.Q? Single digit- or more likely negative digit. But, go on and revel in ignorance if it helps you sleep at night.

OMG Jerry what century are are you living in? Societies have had homosexuals since the time of man. Just because you do not want to come out of the closet don't dump on those brave enough to live the lifestyle they want.

Jerry: gayness isn't contagious. You social conservatives blatantly contradict yourselves on this issue. First you deny that homosexuals aren't even 10% of the population, then you claim they're taking over the planet. You have to choose which BS argument you make, here - you can't have it both ways.

@Jerry-1927474 In many ancient cultures of the world, they recognized a "third sex" that was nearly wholly male or female. Also in many ancient cultures, sexuality was more loosely defined. Its only the spread of semetic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that washed most of that away in the West. But, if you travel to South East Asia, you can still see the practices in India, Thailand, and Indonesia. So, if they haven't destroyed the world in 10,000 years of sedentary civilization, they aren't going to do it now.

And, if Gay men did not have to fear their sexuality, they wouldn't "bring their diseases" home to wives that shouldn't have. Not that heterosexual cheating spouses aren't also doing that. I seem to remember Magic Johnson was infected by cheating on his wife with a woman.

Jerry,

I don't see why you have a problem with homosexuality. In a post above, you state you are "pro-life". If so, shouldn't that make you and homosexuals natural allies. Homosexuals never have abortions, and they clean up a lot of the unwanted children that you and your cohorts are so happy to "save" from being aborted, only to let them waste away in the system.

I have never yet seen two men or two women give birth,

Exactly! We are in such a state of underpopulation in this world that those 10% of people not having kids (well some are, but since it's not their normal sexual preference It doesn't count) will cause the end of the world! /s

plus the homosexuals are not only destroying themselves they bring their diseses home and give them to their hopefully heterosexual spouses.

Whereas the rate of AIDS in homosexual men is higher than the general population in the US, there is little evidence that they are infecting their straight spouses. And lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS... So I guess we should be promoting lesbians.

Whereas the rate of AIDS in homosexual men is higher than the general population in the US,

And it's a heterosexual disease elsewhere.

@boom! reason: Oh, I know. AIDS is a blight on all of humanity. It does not discriminate who it infects.

My point was that, regardless of uneven levels of infection in one group or another, the previous comment by jerry was full of crap. Sorry I did not make that more clear.

Oh, I know.

I could tell you know, since you qualified your statement with "in the US." My comment was just adding to yours in response to Jerry.

Speaking of Homosexuals who have yet to come to grips with the fact that they are gay, it has occurred to me that most, if not all of the adults who wont admit they are gay tend to hide behind the cloak of religion. They fear the desires they have so much that they develop a deep seated hatred for themselves that manifests itself in very dangerous and unhealthy ways. As we have seen with so many on the right who preach so very loudly against homosexuality while secretly knowing they themselves are gay, when they do finally succumb to their desires it is not in a healthy way as would be the case of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. It is no wonder that we find so much pedophilia amongst the ranks of the extreme right, they have repressed their true sexual nature since they were children themselves. The sexual frustration of living a lie combined with the self loathing these men wallow in ever second of their lifes turns these men into monsters, and given the power many of these men have over children because of their positions of authority in the government or their church. And as they have proved in the past it is always the ones who scream the loudest that you have to watch out for. I watched an video of Ted Haggard on stage at his 12,000 member church with a group of young boys dancing, and Ted was right in their faces. Now this was when he still had the hot line to the White House and had weekly phone calls to W to coordinate the eradication of all liberals, gay, lesbians and anyone else they hated that day, you know, PRIOR TO HIM GETTING CAUGHT DOING METH WITH WITH A GAY PROSTITUTE. Not that their is anything wrong with that mind you, it's just that when you make your rather lucrative living preaching against the very thing that you are...................

Sorry, I lost track of where I was going with that, I was on the phone. But what I was trying to say in response to Jerry steering this thread to the topic Homosexuality was, that if religion would just go away and leave sex out of the whole god delusion then perhaps we humans would not be so very confused about who we are sexually. If you look at a man and you get excited then that should be all the clue you and your parents need to know that you don't like girls and from that point on there should be no confusion. But of course we have it so screwed up with our imaginary friend telling us what we are REALLY suppose to feel and who we are REALLY suppose to be attracted to, making us feel like dirt because we aren't like the other boys or girls. But in reality we are just like all the others, everyone has a sexual duality, some leaning slightly more one way than the other. We need to dump these archaic, divisive, bitter, angry religions and accept ourselves for who we are.

Well wyoming, I would say rather that "if you look at a man and you get excited" just means you are attracted to men, it doesn't point towards anything in regards to your attraction to women.

well usually if you are attracted to men you aren't attracted to women, but I guess you could be one of those really strange folks who can't make up their mind whether they like men or women, the dreaded BI'S.

I am being sarcastic and you are completely right, my main point was that religious wingnuts who fight their true nature are a menace to society, they need to come out, and calm the blank down so the rest of us can have some peace and quiet during what is suppose to be our golden years (well almost), but that all got lost in my ramblings.

wyomingliberal
I believe we are already well on our way to becoming the stupidest country on the planet.

Dave in NM
Gayness may not be contagious, but I hear that they get a new flat screen tv for every straight person they convert.

But they are against anybody interfering in THEIR lives...funny stuff from the non interference crowd

I appreciate what you are saying, but you are pro-choice. You may personally never get an abortion (which many pro-choice people feel tha same about), but you recognize that it is necessary to keep these procedures available. That is the very definition of pro-choice.

well said and I agree completely. Until every child has a loving home and every parent has support, we are in no position to force women to have babies.

I'm always amazed at the people protesting outside abortion clinics. They care so much for fetuses but once they are actually babies, they disappear like cockroaches.

Elizabeth, 

You're the only pro-life voice here that I've ever respected. If only more pro-lifers would realize that everyone is entitled to decide what's best for them and their conscience, this country would be a far better place.

...one has to realize that one's personal beliefs are just that - personal...

You're a smart and classy lady. 

Jerry, then I'm sure you're anti-war for all reasons, since war kills more babies than anything else. You cannot say you're pro-life AND still be for war. War murders countless babies, women, and men.

Elizabeth you are a hippocrit,you cannot say you are pro-life and then say it's ok to murder the unborn.

And your position is that everyone else must do as you decree. That a;so qualifies as hypocracy. To those like you a dividing group of undifferentialted cells is a human until they are actually born. Then it's no longer your problem and you could care less what happens to them.

"Murder the unborn" = The greatest oxymoron ever uttered

Have you ever noticed that the word "oxymoron" has the word "moron" in it? Hmmmmmmm.......

Elizabeth, you are correct that abortion will happen no matter what. All one needs to do is look at regions of the world where abortion remains illegal, and observe that they have some of the very highest abortion rates. This is probably because contraception is also illegal, unavailable, or frowned upon in these cultures/regions.

However, I agree with the other poster who said that your position is actually pro-choice. You don't have to agree that abortion is a good thing, and you don't have to have one yourself, in order to recgonize that making it legal and safe is preferable to making it illegal and unsafe but no rarer.

You cannot say you're pro-life AND still be for war.

Whether the pro-life people realize it or not, they are only against the killing of the "innocent." This is a centuries-old Christian (religious) position, where the "innocent" cannot be killed (which includes fetuses), whereas those who are not "innocent" can be killed (enemies of war, heinous criminals).

So yes, they can say they are pro-life and still be for war without contradicting their beliefs. You just didn't know what they believed, partly because they were unable to convey it.

@boom - Actually, it doesn't matter what they believe. Taking life is taking life. Once we agree that under some circumstances it's okay to murder, then it's only a matter of figuring whose ox is to be gored under what law. If a person is truly and absolutely "pro-life" inn the sense they are against the murder of innocents, then they cannot simultaneously be for what W did to countless Iraqi babies, pregnant and non-pregnant women, and "innocent" men in "shock and awe." If countless babies die in bombing raids, wherever they take place, and if countless fetuses are aborted through bombing raids, then to support such a thing automatically exempts a person from being "pro life." You cannot support bombing babies and still claim to be "pro life."

If the pharmacist agrees to work for a company whose rules say he must not allow his/her beliefs to interfere with company policy then he is bound by those rules, however if he owns his own business then he has a right to do whatever he wants. Period. If not then his rights are being violated. They should be able to do anything they want, even in hiring a person unless of course it will violate a federal law. It is after all their business and if the large company has the right to dictate a particuliar policy then so does the small business owners.

Not correct Jerry. Being a pharmacist is like being a lawyer, doctor or CPA... they have duties that extend beyond their duties to their employer.

At one point I was a sole practitioner attorney. Just because I didn't agree with a client did not mean I could reject them, or even worse, supply false information.

Jerry,

...if he owns his own business then he has a right to do whatever he wants. Period.

You are wrong. Businesses large or small which engage/serve the public cannot override human rights or the constitution. That's why restaurants or hotels cannot refuse to serve someone based on race for example.

Mr. Sanders,

Thank you for mentioning the "Comstock Laws"- part of America's dreadful past. Most people these days are completey unaware that 100 years ago it was ILLEGAL and doctors were inprisoned for even TALKING to their patients about how to prevent pregnancy.

Many of these patients were very poor women who had already had 13-14 kids whom they could not provide enough food for. The women's health was in severe jeopardy from their bodies being depleted from repeated pregnancies. Many women died, leaving a large brood of motherless children. And, these laws were calls "decency laws".

Many of today's politicians, such as Santorum, would like to take our country very close back to these immoral laws.

You act like it's malicious. There is no proof of intent or intentional misinformation. It could be that they just spoke with a tech who isn't aware of the rules regarding this medication. It's hard for a pharmacist to monitor EVERY incoming phone call.

Secondly, it ISN'T an abortion pill. It will not cause an abortion if the embryo is already implanted. It's the reason why they want you to take it ASAP (within 72 hours).

An uninformed tech should not answer a question that they did not know the answer to. That's no excuse.

Boom! reason:

I'm not disagreeing with you. I totally agree, but again ... it's impossible for the pharmacist to monitor EVERY incoming phone call. It's not an excuse, it's the reality of the situation.

The person answering the phone knows whether or not they know for certain what the answer is. It is the responsibility of those answering the phone to answer correctly, or if not, ask someone who knows.

If the pharmacist was not involved, it's not his/her direct responsibility. These are adults who should not need babysitting.

Yeah, that was covered in the article. Unfortunately, even adults frequently think everyone that works in a pharmacy is a pharmacist, just like everyone who works in a library is a "librarian." They don't know to ask for the appropriate employee.

And ignorace is a defense in malpractice?

Techs should be educated on the rules. And if they don't know for sure, then they need to ASK someone who does know.

Again, I do not disagree with you. I think I alluded to that in my post when I stated that it's considered a "patient consultation" and techs are not LEGALLY supposed to be answering that question.

I completely agree with you there!

Not going to happen while people can still claim and hide behind ignorance.

That would be nice, Rick, but the GOP is actively trying to pass a law that actually allows doctors to LIE to their female patients about their pregnancy, and provides legal protection from being sued for lying. How sick is that?

Steven, You should do more reading and less typing! Researchers are also not the moral, ethical, or criminal police! Our budgets would be spent on legal issues, not the work we are obligated to perform!

Is says right in the article HOW they did the study (clue - they CALLED the pharmacies and asked for the information. So, no, it wasn't 'unreliable'). It wasn't funded by some 'agency', it was a study out of a University. What current law did the pharmacies break, that they should be 'turned in' to the police?

Steven, point us to what laws you believed were violated.

Spot on!

This is a slippery slope we are traversing here in America, as religious fanatics are trying to impose their own form of fundamentalism upon all of us. Meanwhile, Rome burns, while Franklin Graham and Rick Santorum fiddle!

I have a suggestion for you. Mind your own Business

And married women never want emergency contraception... right.

Further, most teenagers are experimenting with sex. It's not only natural, but to a large extent inevitable. We should try to dissuade them, make sure they are doing it safely, etc. But reality dictates that emergency contraception will be required sometimes. And when it is, don't you want this option over an abortion or unwanted child?

I hope that your message is also directed to teenage boys, teenage girls don't get pregnant by themselves.

aceofhearts is stuck in...well, wait, there never was a time period where pre-marital sex didn't exist.

aceofhearts1 said:

I have a suggestion for these 17 year olds. Keep your panties on until you are old enough to know what your doing. Why can't you wait until you are married for God sakes!!!

So it's only the woman who should keep her underwear on? Not the man?

Kids with proper sex education (which I presume you are against) have a lower rate of teen pregnancy than those educated with "abstinence only." Teen pregnancy overall is way down.

Also, how many times have you been married/divorced? There's about a 50/50 chance that you have been divorced at least once, and a greater chance that if you were divorced once that your second marriage will also fail.

Shouldn't you crusade for the outlawing of divorce to preserve family values? Why beat up only on the kids?

@aceofhearts --

Your comment is inflammatory, and has been reported as such. Please familiarize yourself with the Newsvine *Code of Honor*

Get yourself neutered ace of heartless.