Planned Parenthood - Morning After Pill

[Al Doggity]

I spent another few minutes and came up with others (undoubtedly anti-abortion activists) who have questions:


http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/map

From the mission statement on that site:
"To affirm, defend and promote the existence and value of human life from the moment of conception, and to defend and protect human life generally."

""To examine existing or proposed laws, legislation or regulations relating to abortion and to support or oppose such as appropriate."

Yep. Just an anti-choice talking point.

And there is this quote from earlier in the thread:

Although no conclusive research has been conducted into the long-term effects of the morning-after pill, Dr Niyada said that some studies showed links between constant high levels of progesterone, due to extended use of the pill, and breast, ovarian and uterine cancer plus ectopic pregnancies.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm

If some studies show links between constant high levels of progesterone and health problems, I wonder what the studies will show on doses 50 times higher than normal? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Other_effects

"Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory......
This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening"


 Feel free to refer to my previous posts to answer your next post in this thread. 

[Straw Man]

My daughter's friend has a mother who got pregnant at an early age and is now divorced.  The girl lives with her father and one of his girlfriends.  Not surprised at all that her dysfunctional environment has led to poor decision making. 

All the more reason that this person should not be having kids, at least at the present time.

Once again, Planned Parenthood has done a good thing by helping this person, and for all her faults (as Bum has so kindly posted here for all of us to discuss), she seems smart enough to realize this and that makes her smarter than Bum.

cue the self-righteous/condescending eye roll

[Straw Man]

Go get yourself a husband and make a baby or two and you may have a different outlook on child-rearing.   
  

Yeah Jag, just "get yourself a husband" (preferably in the mold of Jesus/Beach Bum) and then you'll finally UNDERSTAND

[Dos Equis]

From the mission statement on that site:
"To affirm, defend and promote the existence and value of human life from the moment of conception, and to defend and protect human life generally."

""To examine existing or proposed laws, legislation or regulations relating to abortion and to support or oppose such as appropriate."

Yep. Just an anti-choice talking point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Other_effects

"Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory......
This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening"


 Feel free to refer to my previous posts to answer your next post in this thread. 

Since you believe "anti-abortion activists" aren't credible, then I guess the statement from the link I posted is false? 

"There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."

This has peaked my interest.  When I have time I'm going to do some research on this.  (Might take a while.)  I will be surprised if I find studies showing the long-term effects of multiple uses of a preexisting drug . . . at 50 times its recommended dose.  Now I understand why doctors couldn't just prescribe an extra dose.  It wasn't just an extra dose.  It was a massive extra dose.  No doctor can ethically prescribe an approved drug at 50 times its recommended dose. 

Studies showing no long-term effects after multiple uses of a drug are meaningless unless the dosages are considered.  It's sort of like saying steroids are safe because we prescribe them to asthmatics, while guys are using them at 100 times the recommended dose.  It sounds like women (and girls) are walking experiments, just like guys on the sauce. 

And for the record, I don't have an opinion on whether multiple uses of this pill has no long-term effects on teenaged girls.  I don't have enough information.   

[Al Doggity]

When I have time I'm going to do some research on this.  (Might take a while.)

I'll say. Cathy and the gals over at Conservative Chicks who Care about Christ and Conception probably won't be done with their research until sometime next year.

[Dos Equis]

I'll say. Cathy and the gals over at Conservative Chicks who Care about Christ and Conception probably won't be done with their research until sometime next year.

Who?

[Al Doggity]

Now I understand why doctors couldn't just prescribe an extra dose.  It wasn't just an extra dose.  It was a massive extra dose.  No doctor can ethically prescribe an approved drug at 50 times its recommended dose.

Except for the fact that doctors HAD been prescribing the extra doses for decades prior to the Over the counter release of Plan B.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EEDD103FF931A3575BC0A9609C8B63

"Doctors have advised women for decades to take several birth control pills within 72 hours of sex to prevent conception, and Plan B, approved as a prescription in 1999, marketed that treatment as a two-pill pack." 

It's sort of like saying steroids are safe because we prescribe them to asthmatics, while guys are using them at 100 times the recommended dose.  It sounds like women (and girls) are walking experiments, just like guys on the sauce.

Except for the fact that that's a poor analogy on two fronts. Asthmatics don't use anabolic steroids. They use corticosteroids. Patients using corticosteroids can experience extreme side effects, even on small doses... once again supporting my claim that this whole "long term side effect" thing is hogwash. The entirety of a drug's side effects just aren't going to remain dormant for decades on end.

[Al Doggity]

Since you believe "anti-abortion activists" aren't credible, then I guess the statement from the link I posted is false? 
-----------------------------------

And for the record, I don't have an opinion on whether multiple uses of this pill has no long-term effects on teenaged girls. I don't have enough information.   

This is why I say that abortion opponents have little credibility on issues like this.


On the first page of this thread you say this:

I agree with dizzleman on this one. 

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Dizzleman was making the claim that birth control made future conception more difficult. You posted quotes from two articles that didn't even address that subject, yet you still concluded that he was right. It's pretty clear based on what you have written that you HAVE already made up your mind, but you think feigning objectivity gives your protests more credibility.

(FYI- it doesn't.  )

[Dos Equis]

Except for the fact that doctors HAD been prescribing the extra doses for decades prior to the Over the counter release of Plan B.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EEDD103FF931A3575BC0A9609C8B63

"Doctors have advised women for decades to take several birth control pills within 72 hours of sex to prevent conception, and Plan B, approved as a prescription in 1999, marketed that treatment as a two-pill pack." 

Except for the fact that that's a poor analogy on two fronts. Asthmatics don't use anabolic steroids. They use corticosteroids. Patients using corticosteroids can experience extreme side effects, even on small doses... once again supporting my claim that this whole "long term side effect" thing is hogwash. The entirety of a drug's side effects just aren't going to remain dormant for decades on end.

Except I read the link you provided and it doesn't say doctors advised women to take 50 times the recommended dose of a birth control pill.  Would be like the whole pack?   

O.K.  Asthmatics was a poor analogy.  Try growth hormone.  It's prescribed by doctors, but not at the amounts used by people who abuse the drug.   

[Dos Equis]

This is why I say that abortion opponents have little credibility on issues like this.


On the first page of this thread you say this:
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Dizzleman was making the claim that birth control made future conception more difficult. You posted quotes from two articles that didn't even address that subject, yet you still concluded that he was right. It's pretty clear based on what you have written that you HAVE already made up your mind, but you think feigning objectivity gives your protests more credibility.

(FYI- it doesn't.  )

Oh please.  To the extent dizzleman believes there are risks or questions about risks, and that minors aren't capable of appreciating these risks, I agree with him. 

And dude I could care less if you think I'm trying to appear not to have made up my mind.  I say what I think.  If I have an opinion, I state it.  If I have questions, I ask them.  Rest assured I won't be losing any sleep over whether you or anyone believes what I say is "credible."   

Also, you didn't address this quote from the website that you believe has no credibility:   

"There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."

Is this a false statement?  Where are the trials, published or otherwise, showing the long-term effects of prescribing a drug at 50 times its normal dose? 

[24KT]

I'm not going to debate whether you have counseled more teenaged girls than me.  I have no way of knowing that, and neither do you.  I will say that when you actually raise children it gives you a different perspective.  In a sense you're like the person giving driving tips despite never having a license and never having driven a car.  Sure you can play video games and watch TV, but you need to actually take the test and drive to give sound advice.

PRECISELY MY POINT BUM! I have actually been a teenaged girl... have you?
I know how they think, ...and I know what influences them, ...and if you for a minute think she tells you EVERYTHING ...then in a few years you just might be on here flipping mad because PP assisted YOUR daughter without your knowledge.

Go get yourself a husband and make a baby or two and you may have a different outlook on child-rearing. 

Too bad you'll never have a womb or have the ability to give birth. 
Perhaps if you did, ...you'd lose this compulsive obsession of yours to control the wombs of the world's women.
  

My daughter is just like her father:

Ya know she'd die of embarrassment if that got out there don'tcha?      

she is friendly with everyone she meets, warts and all.  It's a good trait and broadens your horizens.  She also trys to have a positive impact on others who might be struggling with certain issues. 

 
All the more reason why you need to focus your attention on your daughter, ...and quit worrying about the fact that PP is assisting teenaged girls too irresponsible to use birth control, or practice safe sex.

[24KT]

Oh please.  To the extent dizzleman believes there are risks or questions about risks, and that minors aren't capable of appreciating these risks, I agree with him. 

And dude I could care less if you think I'm trying to appear not to have made up my mind.  I say what I think.  If I have an opinion, I state it.  If I have questions, I ask them.  Rest assured I won't be losing any sleep over whether you or anyone believes what I say is "credible."   

Also, you didn't address this quote from the website that you believe has no credibility:   

"There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."

Is this a false statement?  Where are the trials, published or otherwise, showing the long-term effects of prescribing a drug at 50 times its normal dose? 

If that's your big beef, then I suggest you take the battle up with the feds and the pharmaceutical companies who approved it, ...not PP. But I sense your real beef is not with the drug's safety record, ...but with the drug itself.
In any event, my original advice still stands... focus on your daughter.

[Al Doggity]

Except I read the link you provided and it doesn't say doctors advised women to take 50 times the recommended dose of a birth control pill.  Would be like the whole pack?   

O.K.  Asthmatics was a poor analogy.  Try growth hormone.  It's prescribed by doctors, but not at the amounts used by people who abuse the drug.   

Plan B is not 50 pills worth of birth control. Did you get that from the
"700 Club" website?

This is  the link to the FDA carton text for MAP:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:skFvueF7rMMJ:www.fda.gov/Cder/foi/label/1999/21045lbl.pdf+%22plan+b%22+progestin+mg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"Each Plan B tablet contains 0.75 mg of the active ingredient, levonorgestrel"

This site has a rundown of the most common birth control pills.
Halfway down the page is a chart with the levonorgestrel levels:
http://www.wdxcyber.com/ncontr13.htm

As you can see, they all are about .15 mg levonorgestrel.

Plan B is taken twice over 12 hours, so it's equivalent to about ten birth control pills.

[Al Doggity]

Oh please.  To the extent dizzleman believes there are risks or questions about risks, and that minors aren't capable of appreciating these risks, I agree with him. 

I don't know what you think you're clearing up here. You believe there are risks despite having no evidence. That does not equal not having made up your mind. How is this contrary to what I said?

Also, you didn't address this quote from the website that you believe has no credibility:   

"There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."

Is this a false statement?  Where are the trials, published or otherwise, showing the long-term effects of prescribing a drug at 50 times its normal dose? 

I've addressed this ridiculousness in several posts.

 Please name any medication that has hit the market in the last 15 years that has any long term studies attached to it.

Please name any medication that has no short term side effects, yet has long term side effects that can remain dormant and without any symptoms for decades.

[Dos Equis]

PRECISELY MY POINT BUM! I have actually been a teenaged girl... have you?
I know how they think, ...and I know what influences them, ...and if you for a minute think she tells you EVERYTHING ...then in a few years you just might be on here flipping mad because PP assisted YOUR daughter without your knowledge.

Too bad you'll never have a womb or have the ability to give birth. 
Perhaps if you did, ...you'd lose this compulsive obsession of yours to control the wombs of the world's women.
  
Ya know she'd die of embarrassment if that got out there don'tcha?      

  
All the more reason why you need to focus your attention on your daughter, ...and quit worrying about the fact that PP is assisting teenaged girls too irresponsible to use birth control, or practice safe sex.

1.  No my daughter does not tell me everything and I don't expect her to do so. 

2.  Have you ever raised kids?  I don't know you, but it doesn't sound like you have much experience with this whole child-rearing thing. 

3.  As I said to the doctor as he was delivering child number 3 in a bloody mess, "thank God I'm not a woman."  I have literally thanked God I will never experience childbirth.  It is a miracle and an incredible experience.  It's one of the reasons I believe women are stronger (and smarter) than men.  But you know I get the feeling I've been closer to childbirth than you. 

4.  I'm not trying to "control the wombs of the world's women."  That's just dumb.   

5.   

6.  How the heck do you know what I'm focusing on in my family relationships?  [I would ordinarily insert the eye roll here, but my limit is two per post.  Usually.) 

[Dos Equis]

If that's your big beef, then I suggest you take the battle up with the feds and the pharmaceutical companies who approved it, ...not PP. But I sense your real beef is not with the drug's safety record, ...but with the drug itself.
In any event, my original advice still stands... focus on your daughter.

Oh phooey.  My big beef is what I said in my first post. 

I haven't made a secret of the fact I'm no fan of Planned Parenthood, thanks to The Coach and Colossus.     They helped me see the light.

Funny how people get all paranoid when you start asking questions.   

[Dos Equis]

Plan B is not 50 pills worth of birth control. Did you get that from the
"700 Club" website?

This is  the link to the FDA carton text for MAP:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:skFvueF7rMMJ:www.fda.gov/Cder/foi/label/1999/21045lbl.pdf+%22plan+b%22+progestin+mg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"Each Plan B tablet contains 0.75 mg of the active ingredient, levonorgestrel"

According to Dr Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Chulalongkorn University, the ``emergency pill'' available locally contains 0.75 microgrammes of the hormone, 50 times more than the ordinary oral contraceptive taken in 21-, 28- or 35-day courses.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm

[Dos Equis]

I don't know what you think you're clearing up here. You believe there are risks despite having no evidence. That does not equal not having made up your mind. How is this contrary to what I said?


I've addressed this ridiculousness in several posts.

 Please name any medication that has hit the market in the last 15 years that has any long term studies attached to it.

Please name any medication that has no short term side effects, yet has long term side effects that can remain dormant and without any symptoms for decades.

O.K.  This horse is about dead, but you didn't address squat.  Your argument is really illogical Al.  Sorry. 

1.  From the "pro life activist" web site:  "There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."  You didn't disprove this statement, which should be pretty simple if there are in fact "published trials." 

2.  This particular medication has apparently not been studied under doses "50 times more than ordinary contraceptive . . . ."  On the other hand, the preceding statement must be false, because Dr Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee must be a "pro life activist."  (I have no idea who he or she is.) 

But I'm about done.   

[Al Doggity]

O.K.  This horse is about dead, but you didn't address squat.  Your argument is really illogical Al.  Sorry. 

  You didn't disprove this statement, which should be pretty simple if there are in fact "published trials." 

Yes, I have addressed it. Over and over. I never attempted to disprove the statement. I don't think it has any validity that needs disproving.  I've explained why several times in several different ways.

You're free to stop  posting whenever you'd like. I'll post rebuttals as long as you keep posting inaccurate stuff and I remain interested.

2.  This particular medication has apparently not been studied under doses "50 times more than ordinary contraceptive . . . ."  On the other hand, the preceding statement must be false, because Dr Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee must be a "pro life activist."  (I have no idea who he or she is.)

This statement must be false because it's inaccurate.  I posted stats above that show the real hormone levels of most popular forms of birth control . MAP is nowhere near 50 times the dose of  ordinary birth control.

I cleared up the myth about increased cancer risks that she talks about in that article. There is no increased risk of ectopic pregnancies, either.

Here's another place in that article where the good Doctor is wrong:

And women who take the morning-after pill unaware that they are already pregnant risk causing deformities in their babies, particularly to the reproductive organs.

That's just untrue.

 
To be fair, I don't think the good doctor said a lot of that stuff. Most of the really inaccurate stuff wasn't in quotation marks and I'm pretty sure the writer of that piece took liberties.

[Al Doggity]

I guess you're done with this topic, BB, but I just wanted to let you know that there actually HAVE been long term studies performed on prolonged high dose usage of birth control hormones.
 
I posted earlier about the research I had to do on birth control options for an account I was working on last year. When we were discussing the hormone dosages in regular birth control versus MAP, it reminded me that birth control used to contain a lot more progestin.

I was going to look up some stuff in medical journals, but when I worked on that account I was with a different agency and we don't have access to certain medical journals with our LexisNexis subscription at my current place of employment.


But I  found a webpage that gives some suitable info. This is from the FDA's official website:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html

"The first oral contraceptives contained 100 micrograms (mcg) to 175 mcg of
estrogen and as much as 10 milligrams (mg) of progestin--significantly higher levels of both hormones than in today's pill."

That's actually more than the .75 mg of progestin in the morning after pill.

A few interesting quotes:

"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."

"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."


"One of the major problems of the studies to date, says Corfman, is that all
the data reflect the effects of the higher-dose pills"



"In addition to its contraceptive effectiveness, the pill has proven to have
significant health benefits. Studies show that the incidence of ovarian and
endometrial cancers, benign cysts of the ovaries and breasts, and pelvic
inflammatory disease decreases with pill use."

[Dos Equis]

I guess you're done with this topic, BB, but I just wanted to let you know that there actually HAVE been long term studies performed on prolonged high dose usage of birth control hormones.
 
I posted earlier about the research I had to do on birth control options for an account I was working on last year. When we were discussing the hormone dosages in regular birth control versus MAP, it reminded me that birth control used to contain a lot more progestin.

I was going to look up some stuff in medical journals, but when I worked on that account I was with a different agency and we don't have access to certain medical journals with our LexisNexis subscription at my current place of employment.


But I  found a webpage that gives some suitable info. This is from the FDA's official website:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html

"The first oral contraceptives contained 100 micrograms (mcg) to 175 mcg of
estrogen and as much as 10 milligrams (mg) of progestin--significantly higher levels of both hormones than in today's pill."

That's actually more than the .75 mg of progestin in the morning after pill.

A few interesting quotes:

"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."

"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."


"One of the major problems of the studies to date, says Corfman, is that all
the data reflect the effects of the higher-dose pills"



"In addition to its contraceptive effectiveness, the pill has proven to have
significant health benefits. Studies show that the incidence of ovarian and
endometrial cancers, benign cysts of the ovaries and breasts, and pelvic
inflammatory disease decreases with pill use."

Thanks Al.  I read the information and the links.  Assuming the earlier information I read is accurate (50 times normal dose), this appears to fall short of a study showing the long-term effects of the pills currently on the market.  I do agree that studies on prolonged high doses is helpful, but I don't think they're conclusive given the apparent massively larger dose contained in the morning after pill.   

[Al Doggity]

Thanks Al.  I read the information and the links.  Assuming the earlier information I read is accurate (50 times normal dose), this appears to fall short of a study showing the long-term effects of the pills currently on the market.  I do agree that studies on prolonged high doses is helpful, but I don't think they're conclusive given the apparent massively larger dose contained in the morning after pill.   

No problem. You've actually posted the information you're basing this on here before. You reposted it right on this page and Dr. Kiatying-Angsulee gives the precise amount of hormones found in the emergency pill :

According to Dr Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Chulalongkorn University, the ``emergency pill'' available locally contains 0.75 microgrammes of the hormone, 50 times more than the ordinary oral contraceptive taken in 21-, 28- or 35-day courses.
 

http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm

The link in my previous post clearly stated that old birth control contained 10 milligrams of hormones.

I'm sure I don't have to illustrate simple arithmetic for you, but 10 milligrams> 0.75 micrograms.

(Full disclosure: that is actually a typo from that article. MAP contains .75 mgs or progestin, not mcgs. Still, that's only a fraction of the amount of progestin birth control pills originally contained.)

[Dos Equis]

No problem. You've actually posted the information you're basing this on here before. You reposted it right on this page and Dr. Kiatying-Angsulee gives the precise amount of hormones found in the emergency pill :

The link in my previous post clearly stated that old birth control contained 10 milligrams of hormones.

I'm sure I don't have to illustrate simple arithmetic for you, but 10 milligrams> 0.75 micrograms.

(Full disclosure: that is actually a typo from that article. MAP contains .75 mgs or progestin, not mcgs. Still, that's only a fraction of the amount of progestin birth control pills originally contained.)

Me and math don't get along too well.  One of my kids was teasing me the other day because I was having trouble helping him with his math homework.  (I had to make his sister help him.)  I told him I don't need to know that stuff anymore.  I hire people to do it for me.   

But I digress . . .

If the original pill contained even more than 50 times more than the ordinary oral contraceptive, then the initial studies show there are health consequences:

"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."

Does the morning after pill contain elevated amounts of estrogen?  If so, seems like the risks found in 1969 would increase. 

[Al Doggity]

I tried to highlight all of the important developments in the pill in that earlier post. I know it was a bit lengthy, so this was probably easy to miss:

"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."



This is also from that article:

"Most pills prescribed today contain 30
to 35 mcg of estrogen  "


And this is from the Plan B website:
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/WhatisPlanB.aspx

"And, unlike many birth control pills, Plan BŪ does not contain any estrogen."


Plan B is the only emergency birth control pill available in America.

[Dos Equis]

I tried to highlight all of the important developments in the pill in that earlier post. I know it was a bit lengthy, so this was probably easy to miss:

"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."



This is also from that article:

"Most pills prescribed today contain 30
to 35 mcg of estrogen  "


And this is from the Plan B website:
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/WhatisPlanB.aspx

"And, unlike many birth control pills, Plan BŪ does not contain any estrogen."


Plan B is the only emergency birth control pill available in America.

If Plan B contains no estrogen and the earlier studies involved elevated levels of estrogen, then the studies have no relevance to the safety of Plan B, right?