Capsules of Controversy: The Pill Bill

You walk into the corner drugstore and peruse through the moisturizers and magazines. As usual, a battle is forged in your mind: the brand that will leave your skin radiant takes on the brand that will leave a blemish in your savings account. Before any major casualties occur, a bar of chocolate plays diplomat, and you agree to its sugary provisions. The war is over. Guilt-stricken, with the chocolate in your possession, you skulk over to the sales counter. In front of you is a 13-year-old girl purchasing a morning-after pill.

You attempt to situate yourself in her ruby-reds. The task is initially trying before it finally becomes inconceivable to you. "I was just a kid then!" you say to yourself. "Buying a morning-after pill? I don't know about that..."

You think more about how you were at her age. Were you in full possession of your rational faculties? Were your values ripened at this age, or were they merely preliminary carvings into your personal code of ethics? Should you have had access to a product with moral implications that might have been lost on you at such a ripe age?

If New York State's Republican Governor George Pataki enacts the "The Unintended Pregnancy Prevention Act," popularly known as the "pill bill" into law, anyone, 13-year-olds included, can have access to the so-called "morning-after pill."

Though five years of life may render them unequal in certain legal aspects, an 18-year-old who may smoke and enroll in the army and her 13-year-old counterpart would each have equal access to the emergency contraceptives as specified in the bill.

Imprudent children, their mothers, a rape victim, or anyone who has engaged in unprotected or unsafe sex can potentially gain access to the drug.

Sponsored by Senator Nicholas Spano, Republican, and Assemblyperson Amy Paulin, Democrat, and passed by a 34-27 majority vote in NY's Senate on June 22, the Pill bill is giving birth to many strands of controversy unrelated to this age quagmire.
Contraceptives are precedents to abortion. Whether this statement is true or false, it certainly propagates controversy. Emergency contraceptives pills (ECP's) and abortion are forever linked, although they denote quite different purposes and definitions.

Planned Parenthood's website states:

"[e]mergency contraception helps prevent pregnancy; medication abortion terminates pregnancy. According to general medical definitions of pregnancy that have been endorsed by many organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, pregnancy begins when a pre-embryo completes implantation into the lining of the uterus (ACOG, 1998; DHHS, 1978; Hughes, 1972; "Make the Distinction?" 2001). Hormonal methods of contraception, including emergency contraception pills, prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation and fertilization (ACOG, 1998). Medication abortion terminates a pregnancy without surgery. By helping women to prevent unplanned pregnancies after unprotected intercourse, emergency contraception has the great potential to decrease the rate of abortion. By helping women terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 63 days after their last menstruation, medication abortion is a safe and effective option."

Vehemently opposed to organizations such as Planned Parenthood are Conservative Christian groups, orthodox Catholics, and pro-lifers. These constituents generally argue that the use of emergency contraception is abortion, not prevention, and that making the drug readily available is advocating unsafe sex.

"In addition to preventing conception, these powerful drugs can act to prevent a newly created embryo from attaching to the uterus, causing, in effect, an early abortion," warns The New York State Catholic Conference on its website.

The "immoral" bill is diametrically opposed to fundamental beliefs of the Catholic religion. Save blasphemy, other political groups, such as the American Life League, have matching sentiments.

"'Outpatient contraceptive services' include oral contraceptives [the Pill], the IUD, the diaphragm, Norplant and Depo-Provera. Of these five methods, only one the diaphragm lacks the potential to kill a pre-born human being. The others can and do kill, and are therefore not contraceptives we are talking about abortion," states Judie Brown, President of the American Life League

However, the ECP's in the pill bill are unlike the French versions or RU-486, which according to Wikipedia.com Morning_after_pill, Controversy_in_relation_to_abortion is an "an undisputed abortifacient which ends a pregnancy by inducing a chemical abortion of an implanted embryo."

Furthermore, under the pill bill, the American ECP in question cannot be attained over-the-counter. It may be purchased just like our hypothetical bar of chocolate, but it will not be diagonally situated next to the cough drops. Rather, as the NY Times affirmed, "[The bill] lets pharmacists and nurses dispense the pill to women who lack prescriptions by using blanket prescription forms obtained from doctors that name no individual patient; it does not allow over-the-counter sales."

According to a press release from Naral Pro-Choice New York, a group that lobbied for three years to advocate the fruition of the "The Unintended Pregnancy Prevention Act," women would no longer have to be inconvenienced.

They explain that the passage of the pill bill would allow an individual to easily access the emergency contraceptive with a trip to her local nurse, midwife, or pharmacist. "A higher dosage of regular birth control pills that must be taken within 120 hours to be effective, and are seven times more effective when used with 24 hours," is Naral Pro-Choice's definition of the ECP, or "Plan B" a brand name for the morning-after pill.

To return to our earlier example of the 13-year-old ECP consumer, she did not have to see a pharmacist in the drugstore to get her ECP. Contrary to popular opinion, however, the pill was not available over-the-counter. For now, the bill is not legislative modus operandi; to acquire ECP, a woman must first consult a physician or other health professional. The likelihood of Gov. Pataki giving the bill his proverbial stamp of approval is slim. A Republican governor in a Democratic state who has a vested interest in maintaining his reputation is not likely to take any type of action in regards to birth control without careful deliberation. It is rumored that Pataki may be swimming toward the current of national politics. To veto or pass the bill would dissolve his popularity in either one of the clashing parties. If Pataki makes the "pill bill" the "pill law," he would be taking a decisive stance that could harm his reputation with conservative constituents. However, if he vetoes the bill, the leftists will be equally displeased.

This leaves me to the conclusion that there will not be one. The capsules of controversy will remain, and for now, the 13-year-old in line at the drugstore will have to settle for acne cream, the perfect complement to our bar of chocolate.