The New York Times Magazine put out an article over the weekend called "Contra-Contraception" about the evolving religious conservative movement against contraception. Its a very interesting piece but one exchange between the author and a state legislator from Illinois really caught my attention:
Ron Stephens is both a pharmacist and a Republican state legislator in Illinois, one of the states that are currently battlegrounds between pharmacists who claim the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives and women's and civil rights groups that argue that pharmacists must fill all prescriptions presented to them. Stephens not only supports the pharmacists' right of refusal but he also refuses to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception himself. He does, however, fill prescriptions for the birth control pill. When I asked him recently to explain his thinking on the two drugs, he said: "It's the difference between stopping a pregnancy from happening and ending a pregnancy. My understanding of the science is that the morning-after pill can end a pregnancy, whereas birth control pills will make a woman's body believe she is already pregnant so that the egg will not be fertilized." And what if studies show that, in fact, both drugs can prevent implantation? "Everyone has their natural prejudice," Stephens replied. "I'm going to understand it my way, and the issue is that you should not be forced to do something you believe is immoral." (emphasis mine)
Yes, whereas most people are able to change their minds or reevaluate their position when confronted with inconvenient facts or glaring contradictions, Rep. Stephens has a "natural prejudice" and will always "understand it (his) way" so don't even bother arguing with him. Problem? Birth control pill and morning after pill are basically the same thing, they both prevent the ovaries from inconveniently releasing an egg thus preventing any chance of fertilization, or pregnancy.
Now, if you want to argue about timing or that one is a stronger dose or marketed differently than the other, that's fine, but people like Rep. Stephens want to have it both ways. Attacking a very widely used and popular choice of contraception, like the pill, is a political loser, but keep Plan B off the shelf and you help restore the value of unwanted pregnancy as a cautionary tale; ie. women should be punished for having sex not geared towards procreation. While you'll never be able to convince Rep. Stephens that Plan B is not the same as an abortion, the contradictions in the way these two products are treated by and large suggests this is more about women controlling their reproductive life versus the people who think that just promotes promiscuity.