Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Monday, March 8, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Anti-Plan B
crusaders
should see
value of pill
Anti-abortion activists in this day and age bring startling
new meaning to wanting their cake and eating it, too.
Case in point: They don't want women to have abor
tions, and they don't want women to have access to pills
taken after sexual intercourse that can prevent — not ter
minate — a pregnancy.
Well, then, what the hell do they want? People to stop hav
ing sex?
A wonderful vignette that illustrates this conflict played out
last month in the great state of Texas. It is a frightening and
tragic epic of ignorance, misplaced religious conviction and
downright stupidity.
And it all started with a rape victim.
The victim — whose name was withheld from print as is
the policy with rape victims at most newspapers, including
the Emerald — obtained a prescription from an emeigency
room doctor for the Plan B pill, commonly called the "morn
ing-after pill," hours after being raped. After three pharmacies
sent her away because they were "out of stock" (and we all
know the morning-after pill is in such high demand), she ar
rived at an Eckerd store.
Enter our story's antagonist the Texan pharmacist Gene
Herr, who is just a few cows short of a cattle ranch.
What happened next was articulated best in a Feb. 27 col
umn by The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman. According to
Goodman, when the rape victim handed her prescription
over, the pharmacist "took (the prescription) in the back
room, prayed, called his pastor and then refused to fill it on
'moral grounds'" Twenty-five minutes later, Herr came back
to the window and informed her of the bad news.
For those who are confused, let's review — again. What
does the Plan B pill do? Prevent pregnancy. What doesn't it
do? Induce abortion. What specific part of the female interior
does the Plan B pill not affect? The fetus. Why is this such a
hard concept? Who knows?
The morning-after pill is, in essence, a mega dose of birth
control pills that judging from the name, controls the possi
bility of a pregnancy, but that's just a guess. It's not like these
facts aren't widely documented or anything.
Of course, the pharmacist's moral problem might have
stemmed from the other common argument among conser
vative groups that the morning-after pill will drive poor, inno
cent teenagers to sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. As if teenage girls
will wake up one morning and think, "Gee; now that I can go
get a morning-after pill — as opposed to taking my regular pUl,
which is more effective — I think I'll go out and have massive
amounts of casual sex with a parade of nameless strangers in
bad neighborhoods!" It's a good thing abstinence-only edu
cation is being pushed so hard these days so that teenagers
won't know how to protect themselves from sexually trans
mitted diseases while they pop Plan B pills like M&Ms.
But wait! According to The New York Times, which may or
may not be concealing the liberal media agenda of impregnat
ing the entire female teenage population, the teen pregnancy
rate "... has fallen steadily for a decade with little fanfare, to be
low any level previously recorded in the United States." Holy
contradiction, Batman! I guess the Plan B pill and prevention
based education really are good for something.
In an Emerald article published in January, Oregon Right to
Life Executive Director Gayle Atteberry said the group opposes
the Plan B pill only when it prevents a fertilized female egg from
planting itself in the womb (which she considers an abortion).
But what Atteberry was thinking about was more like RU-486,
an FDA-approved abortion pill that according to an article in
The Detroit News, "stops a fertilized egg from adhering to the
uterus and induces contractions to expel the embryo."
The Plan B pill, on the other hand, reduces the risk of
pregnancy by inhibiting fertilization of the egg, according
to Planned Parenthood. In short, Plan B works to stop fer
tilization in the first place, whereas abortion methods ter
minate fertilization.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp. But the misinforma
tion distributed by anti-abortion groups serves to deceive
the public into thinking that legitimate birth control meth
ods, particularly for rape victims, are forms of abortion.
And this is quickly sending the anti-abortion movement's
credibility crashing down, much like the since-fired Texan
pharmacist's day job.
Room for two
,v
It happened.
Over the weekend, two same-sex cou
ples got married in Eugene.
I've looked out my window and am
pretty sure the sky didn't fall — well, not
any more than it usually does in March. I
checked with the U.S. Geological Survey
and they assured me that there wasn't
any significant earth movement. And if
any particular deity was so displeased
with Eugene-tumed-modem-day-Sodom
that he/she/it decided to smite someone,
I missed that too.
In fact, the world around me looks
pretty much the same.
Of course, not only was I assured the
aforementioned activities would take
place, I was also told that this would be the
ruination of Marriage and The Family.
So, I checked those too.
After 12 years, I'm about as married as
they come. Did the weekend nuptials
make me feel less married?
Nope. Sorry, but I guess they were
wrong on that point too. Perhaps it's un
healthy, but my definition of marriage,
my commitment to being married and
my sense of being married simply aren't
tied up in the goings-on of others.
I didn't feel less married when Anna
Nicole married her octogenarian. I did
n't feel less married when Dennis Rod
man married Carmen Elektra, and I did
n't feel less married when "Who Wants
to Marry a Millionaire?" hit the air.
Jessica Cole-Hodgkinson
Huh? What? Really.
If those events didn't change how I feel
about my own marriage, then I hardly
think Gretchen Miller's marriage to
Sarah Hendrickson or Kent Kullby's mar
riage to Tim Smith are cause for alarm.
There's room enough in my heart and
my definition of marriage to allow them
their joy and their commitment.
So, what about The Family? Well,
maybe I'm not the best person to ask. I
grew up as the only child of a single par
ent, so my definition of The Family is al
ready at odds with tradition.
Worse, as I've grown up, I've collected
various friends that I now consider part
of my family. Without a drop of blood
between us, I actually love them in exact
ly the same way I love those with whom I
share my DNA. Can you imagine?
Now, despite all my married years, I
haven't taken the time to have children
yet. Maybe that's just as well — I mean,
what kind of parent will I be?
When junior comes up and says that
his new best friend's dad just married an
other man, I'm not going to (1) gasp! (2)
forbid them to play together, or (3) ex
plain to junior that this is another exam
ple of the downfall of our society and he
should not ever accept alternative
lifestyles as legitimate because they un
dermine the moral fiber of our society...
I'm afraid I will be too busy searching for
just the right Hallmark card for junior to
take over on his next visit.
When my daughter comes home and
wants to know why she can't have two
mommies, just like Heather, I'm proba
bly going to tell her that it is because I
chose her other parent based on my pref
erences — but if the two-mommy thing
is important to her, that is an option she
can look into for her own children.
Just imagine — I am quite likely to
teach my children to accept the choices
of those around them. What a waste of a
perfectly good opportunity to lay the
foundations of intolerance.
Well, who knows, perhaps my biologi
cal clock will tick its last ticks before I get
around to having kids, and my accept
ance of same-sex relationships will not
be passed on to contaminate another
generation.
Don't hold your breath.
Contact the columnist at
jessicacolehodgkinson@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
ONLINE POLL
Each week, the Emerald publishes the
results of the previous poll and the
coming week’s poll question.
Visit http://www.dailyemerald.com
to vote.
Last question: Should the Take Back
the Night march have separate sections
based on gender identity?
Results: 54 votes
• No - Segregation is hypocritical in a
march for equal rights: 74.0 percent or
40 votes.
• No — It alienates people trying to
support the cause: 20.4 percent or
11 votes.
• Yes - It will help people be more
comfortable: 3.7 percent or two votes.
• Yes — It will attract more participants:
1.9 percent or one vote.
This week: Do you support the
legalization of same-sex marriage?
Choices: Yes - Marriage is about love,
not sexual orientation; Yes — It’s an
equal-rights issue; No -1 support civil
unions but not marriage; No —
Homosexuality is abnormal.