I suppose promiscuity is a morally charged word that can have different meanings. One meaning is sex without responsibility. In this context, it does not necessarily mean sex with more partners. It simply means taking less responsibility. So, the question could be rephrased: "Do you think easier availability for the morning-after pill will make adolescents more likely to face sex without taking responsibility beforehand?"

The answer is yes because they will figure "play now, take the pill later". But they do not realize that reliance on the morning-after pill is an extremely poor and illogical birth control method. But the abortion providers know the truth about ineffectiveness, and perhaps that explains why they are pushing it. Take Planned Parenthood for example. They pushed "Preven" onto the market. If kids were to rely on Preven for birth control, then much to their surprise there would be an annual pregnancy rate of 62 pregnancies per 100 woman-years of sex. In other words, as Princeton University points out, "If a woman uses only emergency contraception for a year, and uses ECPs [emergency contraceptive pills, a.k.a. the morning-after pill] perfectly after every act of unprotected sex, then her annual risk of pregnancy would be about 38% with Preven..." That means 62% (100%-38%=62%) or 62 out of 100 will get pregnant, according to the definition of 'pregnant' they are using, and will stay pregnant beyond implantation. (More will actually get truly pregnant under the definition accepted by Dorland's Medical Dictionary, because the morning-after pill has an antinidatory effect and will kill some of the babies between fertilization and implantation.)

(Note: One woman having sex all year is 1 woman-year of sex; two women having half a year's worth of sex is also 1 woman-year of sex. This accounts for the fact that many young women do not have sex all year round but only part of the year. At any rate, the statistics show you the relative proportion among methods.)

In contrast, Plan B is twice as strong as Preven. But Preven and Plan B are simply mega-doses of the ordinary birth control pill. The two main kinds of birth control pills are combination pills, which combine estrogen with progestin, and progesting-only pills. Preven is a mega-dose of combination birth control pills, Plan B is a mega-dose of progestin-only birth control pills. So how could experts have been ignorant of the different effects of the pills? In other words, they can obviously experiment with one pill the same as the other, since it simply involves taking an added dose of birth control pills after sex. So how could they have not known?

Thus, it is hard to imagine that Planned Parenthood, Inc. did not know of this difference when they pushed for Preven to be marketed. In other words, they picked the least effective of the two. Preven is half as effective as Plan B, and even Plan B is less effective that reliance on other methods. It was not until a study was published in a leading British medical journal that Planned Parenthood even admitted that progestin-only pills (Plan B ) should be considered too.

In other words, look at the motive. Since Preven is an extremely poor choice to rely on instead of other methods, then when undisciplined people with illusions about the morning-after pill start forsaking traditional responsibility (figuring they will rely on the morning-after pill after sex), there will be a surge in unwanted pregnancies. This in turn will boost sales for the abortion industry, which has faced some decline.

Let's look what would happened under Planned Parenthood's "plan" to introduce Preven if kids started forsaking various methods in favor of casual reliance on the morning-after pill:

Condom: Effectiveness = 16 pregnancies per 100 women.
38 (Preven) - 16 (condom) = 22 extra pregnancies per year.

Withdrawal: Effectiveness = 18 pregnancies per 100 women.
38 (Preven) - 18 (withdrawal) = 20 extra pregnancies per year.

Standard Days Method: Effectiveness = 5 pregnancies per 100 women
38 (Preven) - 5 (Standard Days) = 33 extra pregnancies per year.

For example, even forsaking something as crude as the withdrawal method in favor of the morning-after pill Preven will result in 20 extra unwanted pregnacies per year per 100 woman-years of typical sex among women of child-bearing age. Now that would be BIG business for the abortion clinics, especially since now they have to compete with the abortion pill known as RU-486 or Mifeprex. Also, note that proportions are proportions, and that even though a given couple might not always forsake a given method in favor of the morning-after pill, each time they so it contributes to the number of woman-years of people using this absurd method, and this will result in an increase in unwanted pregnancies, much to the surprise of those using the morning-after pill.

Remember, Planned Parenthood is not just some advocacy group. They own the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics. So why would they have advocated the use of Preven, particularly in view of Plan B? What was their real motive?

Remember, it is not reasonable to assume they were totally unaware about using progestin-only birth control pills in mega-dose form as a morning-after pill, which is what Plan B is, as opposed to using the combination birth control pills for the same purpose, which is what Preven is, because it was already well-known among the ranks that a morning-after pill is a mega-dose of birth control pills. So they obviously would have known to try both kinds of birth control pill for this purpose. So why did they single out Preven, which is half as effective as Plan B? The answer would seem to be that they were hoping to increase sales in the abortion industry.

Here is Planned Parenthood's side of the story.

To re-iterate what abs and numerous others have said before him, you keep basically typing the same post about how ineffective Plan B and Preven are when used as brith control. Numerous people have refuted that claim with facts and most recently abs. They have also stated that it is not birth control but emergency contraception and there is a difference there that either you choose to ignore or don't grasp.

I challenge you to site one source that states that males will take the attitude of "play now, pill later". Surely they must have done studies prior to approving the pill, do you think they would have approved it if that was the case? The trend in this country over at least the past decade has been one of increased sexual responsibility through the use of condoms and the pill, primarily due to education and fear of STDs. You suggest that simply by making something that has been around for decades, the morning after pill, easier to obtain we will wash away all that added sexual responsibility in an evening.

In fact that will not be the case, women had that option available to them previously but they either didn't use it or they couldn't see a doctor soon enough to make it effective.

I don't specifically know how long it took to get an appointment to get a morning after pill before it was approved for OTC use, but if it is like any other appointment with a doctor then that means M-F doctor's hours and the likelyhood of getting an apppointment in the first 24 hours is slim.

For the second time, you are going about this the wrong way. The Princeton source you are extracting 38 out of 100 women from is in regards to women using only emergency contraception for the duration of an entire year. That is to say, 38 out 100 women will get pregnant who use emergency contraception incorrectly.

It is obvious you don't understand the numbers you are using because if you did, you would realize you should have more unintended pregnancies than you listed. Had 38 women out 100 incorrectly using Preven become pregnant, they would be in addition to the 16, 18, and 5 women out of 100 for each of the other methods. There is absolutely no reason to take the number of projected pregnancies resulting from condom failure and subtract them from the number of projected pregnancies resulting from (incorrectly) using emergency contraceptives as the sole means of ongoing birth control.

Even then, though, you are still looking at the figures wrong. Taken as intended and directed emergency contraception is (according to your own Princeton source) is capable of reducing the chance of pregnancy by 75-89%. That means those women in the minority of failures using the methods you've listed stand to reduce their chance of pregnancy with the morning-after pill.

Thus, as I have already pointed out:
Condom: Effectiveness = 16 pregnancies per 100 women.
If those 16 out of 100 women each take emergency contraception, only 2-4 are likely to become pregnant (an 89% and 75% reduction, respectively). That's a reduction in unintended pregnancies rather than an increase.

Withdrawal: Effectiveness = 18 pregnancies per 100 women.
If those 18 out of 100 women turn to emergency contraception, we're down to only 2-5 facing a pregnancy. Again, we're seeing a reduction in unintended pregnancies rather than the increase your misunderstanding and misuse of the numbers projected.

Standard Days Method: Effectiveness = 5 pregnancies per 100 women.
Here 5 out of 100 drops to a mere 0.55-1.25.

And yet again, if taken within the first 24 hours the morning-after pill's effectiveness is even greater, hence the push for making them available over the counter. Scheduling a doctor's visit and getting a prescription filled takes valuable time and is too costly for many sexually active women. Availability over the counter will allow more women the chance to prevent unintended pregnancies and increase the effectiveness of the pills for those already able to afford making visit to the doctor.

Saying that people will ignore the directed use of the drug in favor of a "play now, pay later attitude" has no more support behind it than if I were to say people will consume an entire bottle of ibuprofen despite the warnings because they figure an increased amount will make them feel better faster. The pills are clearly identified as emergency contraception meant to be used when conventional methods fail. They are not intended to be used as an ongoing method of birth control, nor are they marketed as such.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that better availability will lead to increased promiscuity among individuals of any demographic. And once the numbers are properly understood in their correct context it's apparent that availability of emergency contraception serves to reduce the number of pregnancies. And properly reading the information provided thus far will also reveal that taken as intended they are indeed effective.

Edited to add:
BBC: Pill and promiscuity "not linked"

So why break that trend by introducing something as irresponsible and ineffective as the morning-after pill, along with a massive misinformation campaign?


While I admit that Preven is extremely bad, it does not have special powers to make you pregnant as a punishment for not using it correctly. I also think you are fooling yourself when you use the word "incorrectly" this way. In contrast, you will note that Princeton University says the statistics apply when Preven is used "perfectly" (not 'incorrectly'): "If a woman uses only emergency contraception for a year, and uses ECPs perfectly after every act of unprotected sex, then her annual risk of pregnancy would be about 38% with Preven and 19% with Plan B. ECPs when used perfectly are not as effective as other methods of ongoing contraception when used perfectly."

I also think there is a big audience out there who will be highly susceptible to the sort of double-talk you are teaching. The result will be inevitable. Unwanted pregnancy will skyrocket among those who think they can forsake other methods by relying on the morning-after pill. Those people will be dumbfounded when the woman gets pregnant, and many will make a beeline to the abortion clinic where Planned Parenthood is anxious to increase sales. Why do you think Planned Parenthood promoted Preven so vigorously, which is by far the least effective of the two morning-after pills? They know what the obvious statistical outcome will be. But, like you, they want to hide behind the "defense" of saying, "But we never advocated for people to use the morning-after pill as a substitute for other methods. Whatever would have led them to do this?"


Do you think there is a red light that lights up the woman's belly button when her conventional method "fails"? Proponents argue that a rape victim, a broken condom, or a partner who "fails" to withdraw are good examples of where a morning-after pill will have some use. But what really will happen is that "fail" will predominately mean the couple decided to forsake conventional methods, and now hopes the morning-after pill will be as good. This is particularly true if the pills are made available over-the-counter. Likewise, we should not presume that the misinformation will be corrected, because advocates have had almost a decade to do so and clearly have not. Even some 'experts' do not realize how ineffective the morning-after pill is. You do not realize that whether used before or after sex, something that reduces the chance of pregnancy by 75%-89% is an extremely poor method of birth control compared to conventional methods; for comparison with other methods, if reliance is repeated throughout the year, this would mean 19-38 pregnancies per 100 women. In contrast, reliance on other methods will mean fewer pregnancies. For example, there will be 5 pregnancies using the Standard Days Method. Also, your idea that women will combine use of conventional methods with the morning-after pill is not reasonable, for while a few women may do this, if women were that paranoid about getting pregnant they would not be in the market for the morning-after pill in the first place because they would generally be a lot more careful to begin with.



Why not? Doesn't this prove what I have been saying? The pills are ineffective compared to conventional birth control methods. As Princeton points out, using Preven (the one advocated by abortion industry leader Planned Parenthood) as an ongoing method by itself you would have 38 pregnancies per 100 women compared with 18 using the withdrawal method and 5 using the Standard Days Method, neither of which costs any money. So when we look at the extra 20-33 unwanted pregnancies per 100 women, what is going to happen?

Planned Parenthood knows what will happen. Little Susie will end up at the clinic wondering how she got there when she is sure she took those pills just like the directions said. Why do you think Planned Parenthood has not taught people the truth about the morning-after pill?

The medical community knew way back in the 60s when the Pill was introduced that the chemicals in the Pill have an antinidatory effect and can therefore be used to terminate pregnancy after sex between fertilization and implantation. But they also knew the pills were grossly ineffective compared to conventional methods, and that the likely outcome would be that people would rely on the morning-after pill with a "play now, take the pills later" mentality. They also knew this mentality would be fueld by ignorance and a lack of statistical appreciation in the average person's mind. So, rather than to entertain disaster, they simply kept quiet. But now the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is faced with a trend of decreasing sales. By advocating the use of Preven, the least effective of the two morning-after pills, Planned Parenthood is revealing at least one of two things: A) Planned Parenthood is incompetent to realize that one regimen is twice as ineffective as the other, or B ) Planned Parenthood knows about the ineffectiveness and hopes to increase abortion sales by making the pills readily available, particularly in a way unregulated by prescription so as to allow people to 'misuse' the pills as widely as possible.

Using only emergency contraceptives within a 72 hour span following an unprotected sexual encounter is what Princeton is referring to. That is not, however, how emergency contraception is intended to be taken. This is clearly outlined by the manufacturers and distributors of emergency contraceptives. When used as intended, as outlined by Princeton and the other sources introduced in this thread, it is between 75 and 89% effective with the success rate increasing by 50% if used within the first 24 hours.


How do you figure more pregnancies will be inevitable? There are clear instructions from every source a woman will encounter that emergency contraceptive is an emergency barrier to pregnancy not to be used as an ongoing method of birth control. As I said before, you have no more support for this than if I were to argue that citizens will ignore all other instructions included on medications. I've also already provided a BBC article regarding a study that shows women are not likely to forgo their current methods of birth control to improperly use emergency contraceptives as an ongoing method.

The fact that the morning after pill is effective and stands to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by 75-89% or more for those women using it properly discounts your unsubstantiated theory that any organizations providing abortion are leading a misinformation campaign to lead women into more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.


Says you. What do you have to support your idea of what will "really happen"? I've already provided one extensive study which refutes this claim. The morning-after pill is clearly labeled as to how it should be properly used. Your argument is no more sound than if I were to say that people are going to ignore the instructions on condoms and wear them over their head during intercourse to protect against pregnancy. Or perhaps I could make the argument that women would really take the birth control pill as a suppository rather than as instructed. Like those claims, you have no basis for claiming people will "really" ignore the instructions and use them incorrectly.


It's 75-89% effective when used after unprotected sex, freechildren. Name any other method which is even 50% when used after unprotected sex. And I would note again that those numbers increase by 50% when used within the first 24 hours. It's a poor method of ongoing birth control, but that's not how it is intended. As an emergency contraceptive it is highly effective and serves as clean-up when more conventional methods fail.


Reliance is not meant to be repeated throughout the year as that is clearly not how the pill is intended to be used. I would redirect you to the argument that men wear condoms over their heads to protect against sex. Your assumption that women everywhere will misuse the pill is unfounded. As to women combining use, it's perfectly reasonable. Conventional methods clearly have a room for error leading to such numbers as 16, 18 and 5 out of 100 women using different methods becoming pregnant. Women who use the birth control pill and condoms are already behaving responsibly. They are not, however, 100% effective. The morning-after pill allows them to take further responsibility in preventing unwanted pregnancies for those times when conventional methods fail.

They are careful to begin with. Caution doesn't stop a condom from breaking though, and the morning-after pill is there for those times.


No, it doesn't prove what you've been saying. Not one single source has advocated using emergency contraceptive as an ongoing means of birth control. Using them incorrectly is of course going to be less effective compared to the correct use of conventional contraceptives. Your argument is no more sound than if I were to turn the tables and compare the correct use of emergency contraceptives to the incorrect use of conventional contraceptives. You're making erroneous assumptions (that women will disregard instructions and misuse the pills) and comparisons (misuse of EC v. proper use of conventionals) all throughout your argument.


Planned Parenthood teaches all of the facts about the morning-after pill, including studies which refute your lone, personal claim that availability will lead to the abandonment of conventional methods or the improper use of ECs. If you want to claim something to the contrary as fact, maybe you should support it.

You have absolutely no support for your claims that emergency contraception is ineffective. When read in the proper context even your Princeton source refutes your argument. Both the BBC article and the numerous studies found within the Planned Parenthood facts refute your personal opinion that women will disregard the instructions and improperly use emergency contraception as their conventional method. And of course, the true effectiveness of the pills and their ability to reduce the number of pregnancies -- and thus abortions -- refutes your position that Planned Parenthood or any other organization is leading a misinformation campaign to increase unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

I don't doubt that you'll continue your routine of repeating yourself as though repetition is somehow indicative of fact, but I would stress again to you and other posters that personal opinion, no matter how many times you say it, is not necessarily fact. Support for the effectiveness has been provided by various members including yourself, freechildren. Whether you choose to read the Princeton piece in the proper context is up to you, but all the other posters will be able to view it and understand that when used as intended morning-after pills are between 75 and 89% effective. They will also be capable of actually examining the difference between postcoital contraceptives and precoital contraceptives and understanding the unique role of emergency contraceptives in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Your continuing to ignore the facts will not make them go away.

...when conventional methods fail ("fail" = "when they think they failed" + "when they choose not to use them"). Remember, a magic red light does not come on to tell the woman, "Your method failed. Better try the morning-after pill."


You are misleading people when you say this, because that measure of "effectiveness" means "per time" rather than by "yearly" proportion. Let us look at Preven, which is 75% effective per time. Princeton says that 75% effectiveness per time translates into a 38% risk of pregnancy per year. By this they mean 38 out of 100 women will get pregnant using only Preven for a year. Alan Guttmacher says 85 women out of 100 will get pregnant using no method.

If 38 get pregnant, that means 85-38=47 of the 85 pregnancies were eliminated. 47 is 55% of 85. Thus, the annual effectiveness of Preven is 55%.

An annual effectiveness of 55%. Not bad...if you are running an abortion clinic, that is, like Preven advocate Planned Parenthood.

The same calculation for Plan B gives an annual effectiveness of 78%.

See why Planned Parenthood advocated Preven before Plan B? Less effective means better sales at the abortion clinic.

The same calculation for the Standard Days Method gives 94% effective.

These effectiveness rates are measured annually in proportion to the number of pregnancies expected from using no method at all.

So answer the big question: Why did Planned Parenthood push Preven, which is by far the least effective of the two morning-after pills?

Answer another big question: If you are having so much trouble sorting out the statistical facts, how much trouble do you think kids in the back seat of the car are going to have?

I bet you Planned Parenthood knows the answer: More than enough to increase sales at their national chain of abortion clinics!

If a condom breaks, a woman doesn't need a little red light. If a woman experiences a rare sexual encounter without a condom or following a missed pill, a woman does not need a little red light to determine there might be an additional risk of pregnancy in spite of the use of conventional contraceptives. Women will know when there is an increased chance of experiencing an unintended pregnancy and thus know when they should seek additional methods of prevention (i.e. emergency contraception).


No, the Princeton source does not say that. The Princeton study says proper use of the morning-after pill as an emergency contraceptive will reduce the risk of pregnancy 75 to 89%. The information following that fact is in regards to a person using only emergency contraception for an entire year. The statistic of 38% (Preven) refers to a single woman using no other form of contraception after every sexual encounter for the duration of a year. This is separate from the statistics of 75 to 89% for those women using emergency contraception as intended and is not reflective of how the pills are used.


Your equations regarding annual effectiveness are also misleading and reach incorrect conclusions. Coming to the conclusion that morning-after pills will reduce pregnancies by 55% in women using no other form of birth control would not make them 55% effective on an annual basis. It means simply that they would be 55% effective on an annual basis for a single woman who does not utilize any other form of birth control for any sexual encounter over the span of an entire year.

Besides this oversight on your part, you also neglect that the 38% was in reference to women who would become pregnant. You would be adding them to the ranks of unintended pregnancies, not subtracting them. The percentage to eliminate would be between 62% and 81% (Preven and Plan B, respectively). That means of the 85 out of 100 who were to hypothetically use no other form of birth control than emergency contraception (studies refute this scenario), the morning after pill would reduce the number to between 32.3 and 16.15 (62 and 81% reductions for Preven and Plan B, respectively).

Those using other methods of birth control combined with proper use of the pill stand to experience a 75 to 89% reduction in unintended pregnancies with those numbers increasing by 50% when used within the first 24 hours.

You compare a 95% success rate of Standard days to the (incorrect) 55% success rate of morning-after pills used by a single woman without any other form of birth control (over the course of an entire year). Besides the other misrepresentations in your argument, you are comparing a precoital contraceptive to a postcoital one and are relying on an unrealistic situation, which is disingenous at best. It is no more honest than if I were to compare the 75-89% effectiveness of properly used emergency contraceptives to the virtually 0% effectiveness of improper application of the Standard Days or rhythm method.

Taken incorrectly by women using no other form of birth control after each sexual encounter the morning-after pill is not as effective. This is a fact clearly explained with current prescriptions and which will be clearly labeled if they make the move to over the counter medication. All sources make this fact abundantly clear. Even taken incorrectly by women not already using other methods of birth control, the morning after pill stands to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions in the country. That being said, with instructions very concise and clearly included with the medication it is unlikely that many women would rely solely on the morning-after pill for a year of consecutive unprotected sexual encounters.

The results of a single woman taking only emergency contraceptive pills for an entire year after every sexual encounter is not reflective of how the pills are intended for use or how they are likely to be used.

Taken as intended in addition to precoital forms of contraceptives the morning after pill stands to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by 75 to 89% and fewer unwanted pregnancies mean fewer abortions.

In order for any organizations providing abortions to see an increase in women seeking abortions, you would need for women who are currently using conventional birth control to discard it in favor of improperly using emergency contraception as their only source of pregnancy prevention. There have been studies conducted which show no support for this theory. As long as women continue their current means of birth control the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions will decline. And for those women who already forgo precoital contraceptives, availability of the morning-after pill stands to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in that group as well.

Edited to add:
Even the Princeton site you've continually referred to and misrepresented has reached the conclusion that access to emergency contraception does not, and will not, lead to women abandoning current methods of conventional birth control.

You're looking at an overall decline in both unwanted pregnancies and abortions which means a decline in any monetary gain any organization might stand to receive from women seeking abortions. There is nothing to support your idea that there will be any increase in unwanted pregnancies or women seeking abortions. Everything provided indicates a decline, and a decline in pregnancies and abortions puts to rest your conspiracy theory of Planned Parenthood and others seeking to make a quick buck.


You've said this before, but I'm not seeing any push by Planned Parenthood to support Preven over Plan B. Their page on emergency contraception lists links to the sites for both Preven and Plan B. Meanwhile, in contrast to your version of things, Planned Parenthood appears to be in complete support of the FDA approving Plan B for over the counter status. By your reasoning, Planned Parenthood should have a vested interest to prevent the more effective combination from being readily accessible from the local pharmicist. Unfortunately for your still unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, that is not the case.

It is sufficient to say that Planned Parenthood has not shown any interest in banning Preven, which is by far the more ineffective version of the morning-after pill. Instead, even though Preven results in more vomiting and allows for twice as many unwanted pregnancies, Planned Parenthood has not withdrawn its support at all. Instead, Planned Parenthood wants Preven to stay on the shelf, so that unsuspecting young people can be fooled by the misinformation surrounding the pills. Notably, it was the regimen contained in Preven that Planned Parenthood pushed from the start. It was only in view of a widely publicized study that Planned Parenthood was forced to acknowledge the Plan B regimen.

So explain that.

You say Preven is by far the more ineffective means of emergency contraception and that Planned Parenthood secretly supports this method over Plan B in an effort to promote more unintended pregnancies, presumably to satisfy your previously unsupported conspiracy theory of their clandestine attempts to procure financial profits from more abortions. Of course, in addition to not supporting the alleged intentions of Planned Parenthood or any other organization, you have also provided no support for the claim that Planned Parenthood wishes to promote one emergency contraceptive over another.

That being said, every source provided within this debate appears to be in agreement that taken properly Plan B is 89% effective with Preven coming it at 75%. Even in the unlikely circumstance that a woman could afford to use only emergency contraception after every sexual encounter, and indeed would, Plan B and Preven come in with success rates of 81% and 62%, respectively.

While Preven is not as effective as Plan B, it is still an effective method of birth control. Of course, Preven is also not the emergency contraceptive being pushed by Planned Parenthood or any other organizations to become the first emergency contraceptive pill available without prescription in the United States either. The support of Planned Parenthood and other organizations you've attempted to demonize for the more effective of the two pills tends to discredit your conspiracy theory that they are seeking to lure women into more pregnancies so as to profit from increased abortions.

And of course, regardless of which package a woman turns to the result is still going to be a dramatic decline in the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. Either pill is going to reduce the potential profits any alleged industrial abortion complex might be seeking through some imagined misinformation campaign.

Just to quickly illustrate, let us go back to your claims that 16 out of every 100 women who rely on condoms encounter an unintended pregnancy. Had Planned Parenthood or any other organization secretly sought to promote Preven over the more effective Plan B, how would they profit? Your claim is that there would be more unintended pregnancies, thus more abortions, thus more of a profit for Planned Parenthood. True?

If 16 of 100 women using condoms get pregnant without the further option of emergency contraception, Planned Parenthood or any other organization providing abortions would theoretically stand to gain 16 new clients.

Now, if those 16 out of 100 women were to utilize Plan B as an emergency contraceptive we're looking at an 89% reduction in unintended pregnancies as well as an 89% drop in clients. That would leave Planned Parenthood or any other organization with a mere 1.76 new clients.

Ah, but if those 16 out of 100 women were to use Preven instead of Plan B there would only be a 75% reduction in unintended pregnancies and clients. Rather than dropping to 1.76 new clients they would only drop to 4 new clients from the original 16 they might have had. So yes, they would have more potential business than if women had used Plan B. Unfortunately they would still be facing a 75% decline in business... hardly support for a claim that they are seeking to boost profits.

Your theory is severely flawed.

You are not doing your statistics right. Let's start with Preven. Where does the 75% figure come from? If women have sex on "white bead" days, days when according to the rhythm method (a.k.a. Standard Days Method) they are likely to be fertile, then there will be 8 pregnancies per 100 women PER TIME using no method. This is how Princeton University puts it: "On average, if 100 women have unprotected intercourse once during the second or third week of their cycle [i.e. on white bead days], 8 will become pregnant."

So this is our first statistic: Using no method, 8 out of 100 will become pregnant for having sex once (one time) during the "white bead" fertility hot spot period of a woman's cycle.

The next question is what happens to this statistic if women take Preven afterward? The answer is that 2 will remain pregnant past implantation. So where does the 75% figure come from? Since 2 remain pregnant using Preven and 8 would remain pregnant not using Preven, then 6 pregnancies were eliminated. Since 6 is 75% of 8, meaning 6/8=0.75, this is why Princeton says "following treatment with [Preven], 2 will become pregnant (a 75% reduction in the risk of pregnancy)..."

The problem you are not realizing is that a 75% reduction in the risk of pregnancy PER TIME is an extremely ineffective method of birth control because conventional methods have MUCH LOWER rates of pregnancy. This is why Princeton says, "ECPs [morning-after pills]when used perfectly are not as effective as other methods of ongoing contraception when used perfectly." Remember how people used to laugh about teaching kids the rhythm method because they said the rate was so ineffective? Well, Preven has a much lower rate than that.

So let's examine the YEARLY statistic. Remember, the 75% statistic is just per time, not per year. The Alan Guttmacher Institute says using no method 85 women out of 100 will get pregnant in a year.

So this is our second statistic: Using no method, 85 out of 100 women will become pregnant for having sex for a whole year.

What happens to this statistic if women take Preven after sex? Princeton University says 38 women out of 100 will get pregnant in the year if they rely on Preven. So, if 85 women will get pregnant using no method, but 38 will remain pregnant past implantation using Preven, then 85-38=47 pregnancies were eliminated. Since 47 is 55% of 85, meaning 47/85=0.55, this means Preven is only 55% effective in eliminating unwanted pregnancy; in other words, used alone, the annual effectiveness of Preven is only 55% in terms of its ability to eliminate unwanted pregnancy.

In comparison, the version of the rhythm method known as the Standard Days Method is 94% effective. Let's do the calculation. The Alan Guttmacher Institute says the Standard Days Method will lead to less than 5 pregnancies per 100 women in a year. That means 80 of the 85 pregnancies expected from no method were prevented by using the Standard Days Method. Since 80 is 94% of 85, meaning 80/85=0.94, this means that the Standard Days Method reduces the risk of unwanted pregnancy by 94%.

Remember how people were laughing at the idea of teaching kids the rhythm method because they said it is so ineffective that it will lead to more abortions? Well, Preven is even more ineffective than the rhythm method. So why is the abortion industry saying it will prevent abortions?

Also note that Preven will abort a fertilized offspring between fertilization and implantation. So in addition to having more clinic abortions, and more RU-486 or Mifeprex abortions, you will also have abortions between fertilization and implantation using Preven. In contrast, the Standard Days Method prevents pregnancy under all definitions of pregnancy, not just the one proposed by abortion advocates to begin at implantation rather than fertilization.

Please admit that the fact that even you are not clear on the statistics shows how misinformed people are about morning-after pills. And because even people like you are misinformed, a culture of misinformation will lead young people to rely on the pills instead of other methods which are more effective.

Remember, since rates are based on proportion, even if couples do not always rely on the morning-after pill, nevertheless each time they do it contributes to the number of woman-years of reliance. And since the pills are less effective than other methods, it means more unwanted pregnancies will result than if couples had not been inclined to rely on the pills over conventional methods. The concept of woman-years is a statistical one. If a woman is exposed to a year’s worth of a given event, this is one woman-year of exposure. But if two women experience half a year’s worth of an event, this is still one woman-year of exposure. Thus, each time a couple relies on the morning-after pill over other methods, it will increase the number of woman-years of exposure to a method which happens to be far less effective than other methods. Statistically this will result in many more unwanted pregnancies and an increase in sales for the abortion industry.

(Note: It is a mistake to say that "Preven is 62% effective in eliminating pregnancy since 38 out of 100 will stay pregnant past implantation using Preven." The reason this is a mistake is because only 47 of the other 62 would have gotten pregnant. So if you are saying Preven is 62% effective you are making the mistake of counting the 15 that would not have gotten pregnant anyway. You would also be comparing apples and oranges with respect to the 75% per time figure, because this figure, like the 55% per year figure, is taken with respect to the number of pregnancies that would have remained otherwise.)


I did but you probably missed it. Here is what the abortion industry leader says about its involvement:


So, it is clear that Planned Parenthood was pushing Preven, which is by far the least effective of the two morning-after pill regimens.

Also, to take the mystery out of the morning-after pills, the morning-after pill is simply an added dose of the traditional birth control pill. There are two kinds of traditional birth control pills: the combination pill (estrogen plus progestin) and the progestin-only pill. Preven is an added dose of the combination type birth control pill, and Plan B is an added dose of the progestin-only birth control pill. The reason why the mystery exists is because some people do not want the public to know that the chemicals in the birth control pill have an antinidatory effect, just like the morning-after pill. An antinidatory effect means the chemicals can kill a baby between fertilization and implantation.

At any rate, it would be unreasonable to assume that Planned Parenthood did not know about the Plan B regimen, since the Plan B regimen simply means taking an added dose of progestin-only birth control pills. Thus, since they knew the Preven regimen simply meant taking an added dose of combination birth control pills, they would have known for a long time from experimentation about the effect of taking the progestin-only regimen found in Plan B. It is not like you need a chemistry lab to take an added dose of something already available. So, it is unreasonable to assume Planned Parenthood did not know about the both the comparative and overall ineffectiveness of the Preven regimen. Instead, the obvious likely motive is that the abortion industry wanted to increase sales.

Question of the Day: If that is not true, then why has the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, not withdrawn its support for Preven in view of Plan B?

Answer: Preven offers a higher profit margin for the abortion industry.

Need I or anyone else remind you yet again that both Preven and Plan B are postcoital contraceptives intended to be used as emergency contraception? Neither the sources provided or myself have said that emergency contraceptive is an effective means of ongoing birth control. The effectiveness is in how it reduces pregnancy after a woman is exposed to sperm within her body. In that regard all but maybe one method of conventional birth control is 0% effective.


AGAIN, you are (1)misrepresenting the Princeton study and (2)doing your equation incorrectly. First and foremost, the Princeton study is for "If a woman uses only emergency contraception for a year, and uses ECPs perfectly after every act of unprotected sex..." Studies have refuted any belief that women would ever use emergency contraception in this way. Among them is Princeton.

As to your numbers, the 38% is indicative that 38 of 100 women using only Preven for a year after every act of unprotected sex will get pregnant. Even using numbers from an unlikely scenario, you would not subtract 38 pregnancies from your original sample of 85/100 for those using absolutely no form of contraceptive. The Princeton scenario is that "annual risk of pregnancy would be about 38%" which does translate into 38 unintended pregnancies. It means a woman using only emergency contraceptives for an entire year of unprotected sexual encounters has a 62% chance of not getting pregnant.

So, if Preven can reduce the risk of pregnancy by 62% in women using no other form of birth control for an entire year, we would be reducing your original 85 out of 100 by 62% leaving us with a mere 32.3 women out of 100 who would be facing an unwanted pregnancy.


They're saying it will because emergency contraception is not intended to replace any methods of current ongoing birth control. Studies have supported that it will not replace them, thereby leading emergency contraception to be in addition to other methods of birth control. This will close the gap in women pregnant using other forms of birth control. As I have already outlined more than once, 16 of 100 women using condoms facing pregnancy could, with the use of emergency contraception, reduce that number to a mere 4 or 1.76. Fewer pregnancies, fewer abortions.


Prevention of a fertilized egg from implanting is not abortion, freechildren. Redefining it is the only way in which pregnancies and abortions would be increased (per your allegations), but your personal definitions do not usurp those which are facts.


I've already agreed with this sentiment, freechildren. Unfortunately for your argument, the studies show that women will not choose the morning-after pills over other conventional methods but rather in addition to them. Perhaps you missed the last several times I showed that even the Princeton site you've continually turned to supports this. Used in addition to conventional methods the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions will continue to decline, not increase.


You arrived at 47 by subtracting the whole number 38 from 85, freechildren. The study stated that the annual risk of pregnancy would be only 38 percent. Done correctly, of the 85 out of 100 who used Preven as their only source of birth control 38 percent would have become pregnant, leaving us with 32.3 rather than 47. That is still a 62% success rate (not being used as intended).

EDITED TO REDUCE SIZE OF BOX
You're quoting from Planned Parenthood's A Brief History of Emergency Hormonal Contraception which says nothing about whether Planned Parenthood was pushing one method over another. As it says in the piece you yourself chose to quote, "In September 1998, the FDA approved the application of Gynétics, Inc. of Belle Mead, NJ, to market... PREVEN." This says nothing as to whether Planned Parenthood supported one means of emergency contraceptive over another or whether Planned Parenthood had any role what-so-ever in pharmaceutical companies applying to the FDA.


It might have something to do with the fact that it is still an effective means of emergency contraception. Planned Parenthood certainly hasn't tried to promote Preven anymore than Plan B and aren't attempting to sabotage the movement of Plan B to over the counter status in favor of Preven. As an organization dedicated to preventing unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortions they support methods of various success rates to reduce those numbers. Taken as intended Preven still stands to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by at least 75%. As industries are interested in profits, it makes no sense to allege that Planned Parenthood or any other member of "the abortion industry" would seek to promote a product that stands to dramatically decrease business.

You have a good point there, but you are not listening to it. The motive they have for promoting the morning-after pill is precisely that it is an extremely bad method of birth control when relied upon over other methods. Notably, the fact remains that Planned Parenthood has not disavowed Preven in view of Plan B.


Those studies may have been affected by recall bias and were based on the pills being doled out in individual circumstances by prescription. The studies were not based on over-the-counter availability amid a massive misinformation campaign. Couples fooled by the misinformation will rely on the pills and pregnancies will occur that would have been prevented if they had stuck to other methods.

Remember, the rhythm method can also be used as a pre-coital back-up plan for condom users, since sometimes condom users agree to lapse in condom use. A couple knowing the rhythm method would be alterted that "today of all days" is not a good day to lapse in condom use, whereas another couple would just be playing roulette. But Planned Parenthood did not advocate teaching the rhythm method as a pre-coital back-up plan for couples contemplating a lapse in condom use. Instead, Planned Parenthood said the rhythm method is too ineffective and that rather than relying on the method for a pre-coital back-up plan, it would cause people to lapse in condom use too often.

So why do we get an entirely different story when it comes to using Preven as a post-coital back-up plan, when Preven eliminates unwanted pregnancy by only 55%? In comparison, when used as a pre-coital back-up plan, the rhythm method (a.k.a. the Standard Days Method) reduces unwanted pregnancy by 94%! Thus, obviously if couples were to forsake condom use, they would be much better off relying on the Standard Days Method than on Preven. With Preven there will be 38 pregnancies that continue past implantation. With the Standard Days Method there will only be 5 pregnancies under any definition of pregnancy.

Do the math. (The abortion industry has.) 38-5=33. That is 33 unwanted pregnancies per 100 woman-years of lapsing in condom use in favor of Preven, as compared to lapsing in condom use in favor of the Standard Days Method.

You need to be serious. On the one had Planned Parenthood says (figuratively), "If you teach them the Standard Days Method, they will rely on it rather than limiting its use to a pre-coital back-up plan for rare lapses in condom use." But on the other hand they say (figuratively), "If you teach them about the morning-after pill, of course they will not rely on it rather than limiting its use to a post-coital back-up plan for rare lapses in condom use or condom failure." Or they may say (figuratively), "The need for everyone to have it available in case a condom breaks or a woman is raped justifies the possibility that people will start relying on the morning-after pill if it is made available over-the-counter, because (amazingly) that possibility (despite massive misinformation) is virtually nonexistent."

They know the statistics. Since Preven is way more ineffective than other methods, each time someone relies on it it will greatly increase the pregnancy rate in comparison to relying on conventional methods. Yet even though Preven is way less effective than Plan B, and both can be used post-coitally to eliminate pregnancy, Planned Parenthood has NOT WITHDRAWN its support for Preven. Instead, consistent with the motive of increasing sales in the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood wants Preven to be out there, over-the-counter, for a misinformed public to choose.

They've conducted studies outside of the United States where emergency contraception is available over the counter without a prescription, freechildren. You have also shown no plans by any organization to mount a misinformation campaign regarding morning after pills. Both the industry and the FDA agree on clearly labeling the pills to be used as emergency contraception rather than to replace ongoing methods of birth control.

You have provided absolutely no support for your assertions that couples will replace current methods of contraception with the morning after pill. In contrast, there have been numerous sources provided refuting it.


Planned Parenthood doesn't typically advocate couples having unprotected sex, freechildren. They don't advocate it with the rhythm method and they do not advocate it with emergency contraception. Their position is consistent and supported. They discourage against the rhythm method because it necessarily implies forgoing other means of contraception. Advocating emergency contraceptives for when other contraceptions fail is not encouraging couples to abandon current methods of contraception.

Edited to add:
Planned Parenthood's commitment to helping women avoid unwanted pregnancy does not exclude them from providing information for any method. The more options for women, the better. It is undeniably better to use some form of prevention than none. While they may promote more effective and reliable methods such as the birth control pill and condoms, they still provide information for couples interested in "Fertility Awareness-Based Methods."


Lest you be allowed to continue misinforming the readers of this thread, Preven is 75% effective when properly used. Your own Princeton source supports this fact. The 55% you continue to refer to is regarding the unlikely scenario that a woman abandons all other means of birth control in place of using emergency contraception after every sexual encounter for a year's time. This is not how they are intended to be used nor how they are marketed. Even used in this incorrect manner, proper application of the statistics reveals they are 62% effective.


First of all, your 95% was in reference to the Standard Days Method being used perfectly for the first year. The Standard Days Method/Rhythm Method is generally accepted as being less than 87% effective with either statistic becoming less reliable for women with irregular cycles. Secondly, you are still incorrectly applying the 38% risk of pregnancy as a whole number. For women using no other means of birth control, there are estimated to be 32.3 unwanted pregnancies. This is still a reduction of 53 unintended pregnancies.


Whether taken properly or taken improperly as the only method of birth control (which has been shown to be unlikely), emergency contraception reduces the number of unintended pregnancies. With fewer and fewer women experiencing unintended pregnancies, fewer and fewer women will be seeking abortion, thus leading to a reduction in any profits some alleged abortion industry might be seeking.

Planned Parenthood has not withdrawn support of Preven because there is no reason to withdraw support for it. It is still an effective means of preventing pregnancy following unprotected sex. Whether Preven or Plan B were available over the counter, every organization providing access to abortions would experience a decline in demand for abortions -- inconsistent with your theory of seeking a profit. Also inconsistent with your theory is that Planned Parenthood is promoting Plan B (not Preven) to become the first over the counter emergency contraception.

Plan B has been shown to be 89% effective when properly used, with a success rate as high as 95% when used within the first 24 hours. Even when used incorrectly as a sole means of birth control Plan B has been shown to still be 81% effective. The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood does not appear to have ever actively supported Preven in favor of Plan B, but they are most certainly actively supporting Plan B in favor of Preven. Any company interested only in making profits would not advocate a plan of action that cuts into profit.

To better address the original questions for debate, every source I've seen indicates increased availability will not increase promiscuity but that better access will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I absolutely welcome a policy slated to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States.

You are not understanding the statistical concepts. "A" woman does not have to rely on Preven the whole year in order for the statistic to apply. Let us say 12 women rely on Preven during one month each, that adds up to one woman-year of reliance, even though the women were different. This is because the statistic tells you the proportion to expect in terms of the number of woman-years of reliance. For every 100 woman-years of reliance on Preven as opposed to conventional methods, you can expect 38 pregnancies annually.


It does not work that way. Women using Preven alone will experience 38 pregnancies annually per 100 woman-years of reliance. It makes no difference if they really wanted children or not. It only has to do with proportion. When people have sex, whether they want children or not, they have a certain chance of getting pregnant.


It sounds like you are reversing yourself from a previous post where you say:


Also, as I have said before, the morally charged word "promiscuity" does not necessarily mean more partners or more sex. It can also mean couples face sex with less of a sense of responsibility beforehand. The morning-after pill encourages promiscuity in this sense by reaffirming the "play now, do something about later" motto that has plaqued sexual responsibility. People will think "play now, take the pills later" and they will not even know what a bad choice the pills really are compared to reliance on conventional methods.

P.S. Here is a good way to look at the 62% annual figure for Preven. It is not that the figure is necessarily wrong, depending how you word it. But look what happens if you word it wrong. For example, using no method you can expect 85 pregnancies annually per 100 woman-years. So would it be fair to say that using no method is 15% effective? Of course not, because it is obvious that using no method is 0% effective. But since Preven eliminates 47 of those 85 pregnancies (85-38=47), we say Preven is 55% (47/85) effective in eliminating pregnancy that continues past implantation. If you say Preven is 62% effective in eliminating pregnancy that continues past implantation, you are giving Preven credit for "eliminating" the 15 pregnancies that never would have happened.

However, the 62% figure IS useful in terms of the ratio of pregnancies to non-pregnancies. With Preven alone, 38 girls will have babies past implantation and 62 will not. With the Standard Days Method, 5 of the girls will have babies under the broadest definition of pregnancy and 95 will not. So, what crowd does the abortion industry want the girls to be in? Obviously, the Preven crowd, that is why they are advocating it so fiercely, whereas the Standard Days Method they hold in disregard. On top of that, they do not really want the public to know these facts. They do not even want the girls to know that you have twice the chance of having a pregnancy that lasts past implantation with Preven than with Plan B. The abortion industry knows that women in certain position feel uncomfortable about researching the facts about reproductive control, and so they know that these women will blindly rely on whatever they say without researching the facts.

Actually freechildren, you're making up your own definition for promiscuity. The definition of promiscuity means multiple partners. Sorry, but that's what the word means. You can't try to redefine it to suit your purposes. Your definition means "irresponsible." People can have multiple sexual partners and still be responsible, hence "promiscuity" is not synonymous with "irresponsibility," as that is the context you've been using it in.
I've made this point before in regards to promiscuity and the MA pill, and using the correct definition of promiscuity, the MA pill should have no effect whatsoever on how many sexual partners a person has. There are already plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy; there are no such methods for preventing STDs besides the condom. The main danger of having sex with multiple people is STDs, not pregnancy. And if the availability of condoms hasn't led to an increase of promiscuity in teens, then there definitely isn't any reason to believe that another way to prevent pregnancy will.

I like your reasoning. But there is a problem with it. Condom use means "condom first, then play". But some people figure, why worry now, "play now, deal later". A unique problem with the morning-after pill is that it reaffirms the "play now, deal later" motto that accompanies casual attitudes about sex. In part, having to take responsibility inhibits a man from having sex. This is why when the birth control pill was popularized, there was an erruption of irresponsibility, because men assumed women should have to deal with things. So thanks to the attitudes the pill generated, America was soon clamouring for legal abortion. In the same way, popularization of the morning-after pill will teach young men that women are the ones who have to deal with it, and that they can simply deal with it later. But the men will not realize that 1) taking those pills can mean killing a baby between fertlization and implantation, which is not an easy decision to make, 2) taking those pills can make a woman extremely ill, and 3) the effectiveness of the pills is less than the effectiveness of making plans before sex using any conventional method.

You have sabotaged your entire arguement here freechildren.

Emergency contraception is intended to be used as a Backup to traditional forms of contraception. The numbers you quoted as well as the literature you quoted support that fact.

You state that 8 women would become pregnant if they used your "bead" method. So let's look at what would happen to those 8 women if ECP was not OTC.

1. These 8 women could opt to go to the doctor for ECP. There is no reason to suspect the doctor would deny them ECP after hearing their account of events and offering the appropriate warnings. The difference here is these women may not be able to see a doctor in the first 24 hours, thus reducing the effectiveness of the ECP. The reason for that could be timing... sexual intercourse occurs on saturday and no doctors are available until Monday or due to pre-existing appointments.

2. These 8 women would not opt to use ECP in which case they would become pregnant and they would be forced to resort to either abortion or adoption depending on their choices.

By increasing availability, you increase effectiveness. If these same 8 women could walk down the block and get an ECP at Walgreens 2 hours after sex, they greatly increase the effectiveness of the pill.

Secondly, your whole argument centers around ECP being used alone and being used repeatedly, thus reducing its effectiveness.

1) ECP is clearly stated to be an "emergency" contraceptive which implies that it is "additive" to other methods of birth control. Therefore, any arguements suggesting that other methods of birth control become less effective because of the availability of ECP are flawed. ECP can only decrease pregnancy rates, statistically it is impossible to increase them.

2) You grasp of statistics and probability is tenuous at best. If a six sided die is rolled 10 times, each time it is equally likely to land on one of the six numbers as the last. There is no such thing as history in probability

You admit to as much here, however this 75% number does not decrease each time an ECP is used. It is not 75% the first time, 68% the second and 40% the 10th... it is 75% each time, elementary statistics.

By the very definition of "emergency" contraceptive, this would imply that it should ONLY be used occasionally, not continuously. The manufacturers tell you as much.

freechildren, please refute these basic laws of statistics and probability and show evidence of this misinformation campaign by the manufacturers. Everything I have read and you have presented clearly labels ECP as an "emergency" contraceptive and for "occassional" use as a "back up" to regular methods of contraception.

I'm not changing my position at all, freechildren. If Planned Parenthood and other organizations offering access to abortions were interested only in profits they would not promote a product that stands to cut their profits in half (per second quote). That Planned Parenthood actively supports women taking any action over complacency,and goes further to support the most effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancies, only serves to show that they are not seeking to turn a profit through their support of Plan B or Preven as you have alleged.


This argument has already been refuted by more than one source. In addition to those refutations the FDA and the manufacturer of emergency contraception already plan to clearly label over the counter emergency contraceptives as not intended to replace conventional methods. You have not once supported your claims that women will forgo conventional methods to take EC incorrectly.


Perhaps you should clarify who this "abortion industry" is, freechildren. Thus far you have only implicated Planned Parenthood, but this contradicts your conspiracy theory. You say the alleged abortion industry is advocating Preven "so fiercely" when in fact Planned Parenthood is pushing for Plan B to become the first over the counter emergency contraceptive. As to the difference in effectiveness, nobody is hiding the statistics of each pill anymore than they are hiding the fact that emergency contraception is intended as emergency prevention rather than an ongoing means of birth control.

Regardless of any of the numbers we discuss, the fact of the matter remains that promotion of emergency contraception will REDUCE the number of unintended pregnancies and REDUCE the number of abortions. This completely discredits your unsupported claims that promotion of either morning after pill would lead to an increase in pregnancies and profits.

Any so-called abortion industry has nothing to gain promoting any method of birth control, much less promoting better access to one which stands to possibly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies/abortions in half.


I quoted you once in this post as saying essentially the same thing in your post prior to the one quoted above. I would stress again that if you are going to rely on this argument that you should SUPPORT IT. Thus far everything provided in this debate has recognized that women will not forgo conventional contraceptives in favor of incorrectly using emergency contraceptives. There will be protection before combined with protection after if needed.

Put very simply:
Emergency contraceptives are not intended to replace ongoing methods of precoital birth control. The studies show that they will not be used in place of them. As such, access to emergency contraceptives will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and fewer unintended pregnancies mean fewer abortions. The power to safely decrease the number of pregnancies and abortions in the United States is what makes emergency contraceptives available over the counter such a positive policy.

If you're going to argue with that paragraph, freechildren, I expect you to come back with some kind of support for any argument to the contrary. I will also expect some support for any continued claims of some misinformation conspiracy on behalf of any supposed abortion industry. Simply saying so doesn't make it true.