Approved in Europe last year, ella is now available as an emergency contraceptive in at least 22 countries.
A European contraceptive that works as a five-day alternative to the “morning-after” pill may be coming to American shores, but a thorny debate surrounding the drug’s chemical similarity to the RU-486 abortion pill raises some politically charged questions for the FDA.
The FDA is set to examine the risks of the new drug next week, but arguments are already growing heated over the old questions of when life begins and the right of women to control their own bodies. —JCL
The Washington Post:
A French drug company is hoping to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after “the morning after.”
The drug, dubbed ella, would be sold as a contraceptive—one that could prevent pregnancy for as many as five days following unprotected sex. But the new drug is a close chemical relative of the abortion pill RU-486, raising the possibility that it could theoretically be used to induce abortion by making the womb inhospitable for an embryo.
The controversy sparked by that ambiguity will force a panel of federal advisers scheduled to consider endorsing the drug next week to grapple with a host of thorny issues. The last time the Food and Drug Administration vetted an emergency contraceptive—Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill—the decision was mired in debate over such fundamental questions as when life begins and the distinction between preventing and terminating a pregnancy. Ella is raising many of those same politically charged questions—but more sharply, testing the Obama administration’s pledge to keep ideology from influencing scientific decisions.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
I say we abort every damn thing that ain’t nailed down! The reason religious douche bags are so against abortion is because they’re in love with misery. Honestly, have you ever known a happy Southern Baptist? Have you ever seen one of those no-make-up-wearing, ankle-length-dress-wearing, no-hair-cutting Church of God women who wasn’t a perpetual glower-puss? Religions don’t just thrive on misery, they depend on it. Take it from me: It’s no accident that the current Pope is a former Nazi!
Golly, imagine a life philosophy that really did view life as something special. So special in fact that the quality of that life was of the greatest importance. Show me a society where fecundity is viewed with disdain rather than as a raison d’etre and I’ll show you an atheist paradise.
Religions that fanatically promote reproduction are to blame for the devaluation of life. The sheer commonness of humanity inspires contempt. Don’t agree? Given the choice, would you sooner stomp on a mantis or cockroach?
“…the so-called morning-after pill—the decision was
mired in debate over such fundamental questions as
when life begins and the distinction between
preventing and terminating a pregnancy.”
These are absolutely NOT ‘fundamental questions’ in a
political discourse debate on this particular topic.
The job or scope of the FDA is to make sure the drug
can be used safely for the intended purpose. That’s
it. That’s the only thing they have to verify, and
that’s based on “fundamental science.”
It’s solely up to the individual if she chooses to
use them or not. Maybe it should come with a warning:
Will prevent conception from occurring.
Do not use if you are intending to become pregnant.
If you are intending to become pregnant because you
are adequately prepared to feed, clothe, house,
educate, nurture, etc, another prospective human
being, AND you don’t already have more than two
children, then you should NOT take this product.
If you are intending to become pregnant just so you
can refuse to terminate the pregnancy, then you
SHOULD take this product as directed, and follow-up
with your mental health care provider.
If you already have at least three children, you
SHOULD take this product. The world is currently
busting at the seams, and the center is already
giving way. We’re still recessing. (or so they tell
me.)
And there you have it. The last part has a little
politics thrown in just for the heck of it. But
there’s no reason for such a decision to be based on
anything more than the science. This is pretty much a
no-brainer for the Obama Admin. But, maybe I
shouldn’t speak too soon.
Quite honestly, I’ve never ever been able to
understand how the topic got to be political to begin
with. Even BEFORE Roe v Wade.
Why do people care what other people they don’t even
know, do - or not do - in terms of their reproductive
decisions? Should women need to report to the
government when they have their tubes tied, or have a
hysterectomy. Men don’t report vasectomies. Why was
Viagra the fastest approved drug in the history of
the FDA. And why do major drug insurance coverage
providers cover viagra and not birth control pills?
Now imagine if we had to report all of the
spontaneous abortions occurring in the first
trimester, nationwide. Wait. That might be a good
idea. The stats would overwhelm some of the
religiosio’s to realize that god (or Mother Nature
Herself) was certainly the more prolific pregnancy
terminator. Miscarriages, still births, are rarely
‘intended’, and they occur far more frequently than
abortion procedures do. For whatever the reason,
these spontaneous abortions are NOT part of the
political discourse, although THAT would make more
sense, considering the very high infant mortality
rates that we have right here in the US, specifically
in the very poor areas of the deep south. And, there
are clear (political)reasons for that, which means
there should be solutions. But nobody’s counting
those babies when they’re having these so-called
debates about the definition of when life starts.
Surely these decisions should always and only be
discussed at the most basic of privacy levels,
between the woman and her physician. How in the world
does the government play in on this?
I get it with the religiosios, because it’s a mindset
and all of that. But that’s the Church, which has
nothing to do with the State, ie - the Government.
The FDA. If they don’t want to have abortions or do
anything that might risk a pregnancy, (which could be
anything) then they shouldn’t. Nobody can force them.
But nobody can make that decision for anyone other
then herself.
All we need to know from their scientists and other
experts is if it’s safe and if it works.
Ugh: Medically and scientifically speaking, pregnancy is a parasitic relationship between the host(potential mother) and the parasite(fetus)where the parasite benefits at the expense of the hosts body. That means if the host only has enough nutrients for one body and the parasite needs it, regardless if it damages the host body, the parasite takes what it needs, even if it kills the host in the process. If pregnancy was a symbiotic relationship, which it is not, it would be beneficial to both the host and the parasite.
You may say that a woman becomes a mother and a baby is born, you may look at it as though it were a symbiotic relationship-it’s not. A woman’s body takes 4 years to return back to what it was before the pregnancy and birth of a baby. Just because some people tend to pop out another baby in 9-12 months time and time again does not mean it is healthy for all involved, mother and children.
At least in some of the more educated countries, women no longer die in childbirth as often as in the past. I remember when I worked in a nursing home and some of the female patients would talk about the “good old days” when many of their families had one father and several different mothers, as the previous mothers died in childbirth or complications resulting from. One of my favorite patients told of her how father literally bred 4 different wives to death, all from childbirth complications. Needless to say she came from a very large family. This is also a reason why many women remained single after seeing first hand what pregnancy and birth, good or bad outcomes did to a woman’s life expectancy.
As for the remark about people having the right to kill anything that doesn’t pay taxes. I never said anything about taxes. But what about going into other countries of the world and killing “THOSE” people because of religious, political or any other reason that world leaders feel privy to at the time. Those people killed in the insanity known as war are already here and many had those lives destroyed because of total strangers trying to control or over take other peoples lives and lands. But that is okay huh?
I draw the line when your views or religious “feelings. beliefs” trespass into my personal life or the lives of others you will never know, yet feel it is your right to dictate, control and make laws to take their freedoms(rights)away from them, and I mean women when I say “them”, that is where your views end and mine begin.
Don’t want an abortion, birth control and anyone interfering with your reproductive choices, then leave mine and other women, who think or feel differently than you do alone. We will not impose our beliefs unto you and we ask you to respect us as we have put up with decades of abuse since Roe-v-Wade was made legal along with birth control applications and keep your beliefs to yourself.
The fact the the author refers to Plan B (incorrectly)
as “the abortion pill” lets me know this is an anti-
choice man, and makes me wonder what else he is
reporting incorrectly.
My mom had two abortions in the 1930’s, before I was conceived. She spared two from birth into grinding poverty. Ask a female fetus in Congo if she wishes to be birthed into famine, raised in fear and hunger, gang raped at age nine, mutilated with machetes, and executed by having a rifle fired up her vagina.
Ask any thinking human if he’d live his life again..
without changing anything, which is how we have to endure this one.
Women who love CHILDREN abort all their fetuses rather than birth them into this.
“Why do we grieve at a funeral and rejoice at a birth? Because we are not the one involved.” (Mark Twain)
“The death of a child is never really to be regretted, considering how much he has escaped.” (Thomas Hardy)
So purplewolf, that means people have the right to kill anything that doesn’t pay taxes? Also, as far as the “parasite” remark, couldn’t you consider, say, a 3-year-old no more than a “parasite” since it cannot serve the family, yet consumes [considerably more than a fetus]? Just where do you plan on drawing the line?
Want to know when live begins? Ask the IRS. You can only write a human baby off a dependent after it is born, up to that point it doesn’t exist as an individual, it is a parasite on the hosts body(woman)until it is born.Nuf sed!
By "G"utless "W"itless Hitler, June 14, 2010 at 9:19 am Link to this comment
I say we abort every damn thing that ain’t nailed down! The reason religious douche bags are so against abortion is because they’re in love with misery. Honestly, have you ever known a happy Southern Baptist? Have you ever seen one of those no-make-up-wearing, ankle-length-dress-wearing, no-hair-cutting Church of God women who wasn’t a perpetual glower-puss? Religions don’t just thrive on misery, they depend on it. Take it from me: It’s no accident that the current Pope is a former Nazi!
Golly, imagine a life philosophy that really did view life as something special. So special in fact that the quality of that life was of the greatest importance. Show me a society where fecundity is viewed with disdain rather than as a raison d’etre and I’ll show you an atheist paradise.
Religions that fanatically promote reproduction are to blame for the devaluation of life. The sheer commonness of humanity inspires contempt. Don’t agree? Given the choice, would you sooner stomp on a mantis or cockroach?
Report thisBy cyrena, June 13, 2010 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment
“…the so-called morning-after pill—the decision was
mired in debate over such fundamental questions as
when life begins and the distinction between
preventing and terminating a pregnancy.”
These are absolutely NOT ‘fundamental questions’ in a
political discourse debate on this particular topic.
The job or scope of the FDA is to make sure the drug
can be used safely for the intended purpose. That’s
it. That’s the only thing they have to verify, and
that’s based on “fundamental science.”
It’s solely up to the individual if she chooses to
use them or not. Maybe it should come with a warning:
Will prevent conception from occurring.
Do not use if you are intending to become pregnant.
If you are intending to become pregnant because you
are adequately prepared to feed, clothe, house,
educate, nurture, etc, another prospective human
being, AND you don’t already have more than two
children, then you should NOT take this product.
If you are intending to become pregnant just so you
can refuse to terminate the pregnancy, then you
SHOULD take this product as directed, and follow-up
with your mental health care provider.
If you already have at least three children, you
SHOULD take this product. The world is currently
busting at the seams, and the center is already
giving way. We’re still recessing. (or so they tell
me.)
And there you have it. The last part has a little
politics thrown in just for the heck of it. But
there’s no reason for such a decision to be based on
anything more than the science. This is pretty much a
no-brainer for the Obama Admin. But, maybe I
shouldn’t speak too soon.
Quite honestly, I’ve never ever been able to
understand how the topic got to be political to begin
with. Even BEFORE Roe v Wade.
Why do people care what other people they don’t even
know, do - or not do - in terms of their reproductive
decisions? Should women need to report to the
government when they have their tubes tied, or have a
hysterectomy. Men don’t report vasectomies. Why was
Viagra the fastest approved drug in the history of
the FDA. And why do major drug insurance coverage
providers cover viagra and not birth control pills?
Now imagine if we had to report all of the
spontaneous abortions occurring in the first
trimester, nationwide. Wait. That might be a good
idea. The stats would overwhelm some of the
religiosio’s to realize that god (or Mother Nature
Herself) was certainly the more prolific pregnancy
terminator. Miscarriages, still births, are rarely
‘intended’, and they occur far more frequently than
abortion procedures do. For whatever the reason,
these spontaneous abortions are NOT part of the
political discourse, although THAT would make more
sense, considering the very high infant mortality
rates that we have right here in the US, specifically
in the very poor areas of the deep south. And, there
are clear (political)reasons for that, which means
there should be solutions. But nobody’s counting
those babies when they’re having these so-called
debates about the definition of when life starts.
Surely these decisions should always and only be
discussed at the most basic of privacy levels,
between the woman and her physician. How in the world
does the government play in on this?
I get it with the religiosios, because it’s a mindset
and all of that. But that’s the Church, which has
nothing to do with the State, ie - the Government.
The FDA. If they don’t want to have abortions or do
anything that might risk a pregnancy, (which could be
anything) then they shouldn’t. Nobody can force them.
But nobody can make that decision for anyone other
then herself.
All we need to know from their scientists and other
Report thisexperts is if it’s safe and if it works.
By purplewolf, June 13, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
Ugh: Medically and scientifically speaking, pregnancy is a parasitic relationship between the host(potential mother) and the parasite(fetus)where the parasite benefits at the expense of the hosts body. That means if the host only has enough nutrients for one body and the parasite needs it, regardless if it damages the host body, the parasite takes what it needs, even if it kills the host in the process. If pregnancy was a symbiotic relationship, which it is not, it would be beneficial to both the host and the parasite.
You may say that a woman becomes a mother and a baby is born, you may look at it as though it were a symbiotic relationship-it’s not. A woman’s body takes 4 years to return back to what it was before the pregnancy and birth of a baby. Just because some people tend to pop out another baby in 9-12 months time and time again does not mean it is healthy for all involved, mother and children.
At least in some of the more educated countries, women no longer die in childbirth as often as in the past. I remember when I worked in a nursing home and some of the female patients would talk about the “good old days” when many of their families had one father and several different mothers, as the previous mothers died in childbirth or complications resulting from. One of my favorite patients told of her how father literally bred 4 different wives to death, all from childbirth complications. Needless to say she came from a very large family. This is also a reason why many women remained single after seeing first hand what pregnancy and birth, good or bad outcomes did to a woman’s life expectancy.
As for the remark about people having the right to kill anything that doesn’t pay taxes. I never said anything about taxes. But what about going into other countries of the world and killing “THOSE” people because of religious, political or any other reason that world leaders feel privy to at the time. Those people killed in the insanity known as war are already here and many had those lives destroyed because of total strangers trying to control or over take other peoples lives and lands. But that is okay huh?
I draw the line when your views or religious “feelings. beliefs” trespass into my personal life or the lives of others you will never know, yet feel it is your right to dictate, control and make laws to take their freedoms(rights)away from them, and I mean women when I say “them”, that is where your views end and mine begin.
Don’t want an abortion, birth control and anyone interfering with your reproductive choices, then leave mine and other women, who think or feel differently than you do alone. We will not impose our beliefs unto you and we ask you to respect us as we have put up with decades of abuse since Roe-v-Wade was made legal along with birth control applications and keep your beliefs to yourself.
Report thisBy Cecilia, June 13, 2010 at 6:25 am Link to this comment
The fact the the author refers to Plan B (incorrectly)
Report thisas “the abortion pill” lets me know this is an anti-
choice man, and makes me wonder what else he is
reporting incorrectly.
By godistwaddle, June 13, 2010 at 6:14 am Link to this comment
My mom had two abortions in the 1930’s, before I was conceived. She spared two from birth into grinding poverty. Ask a female fetus in Congo if she wishes to be birthed into famine, raised in fear and hunger, gang raped at age nine, mutilated with machetes, and executed by having a rifle fired up her vagina.
Ask any thinking human if he’d live his life again..
without changing anything, which is how we have to endure this one.
Women who love CHILDREN abort all their fetuses rather than birth them into this.
“Why do we grieve at a funeral and rejoice at a birth? Because we are not the one involved.” (Mark Twain)
Report this“The death of a child is never really to be regretted, considering how much he has escaped.” (Thomas Hardy)
By Ugh, June 12, 2010 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
So purplewolf, that means people have the right to kill anything that doesn’t pay taxes? Also, as far as the “parasite” remark, couldn’t you consider, say, a 3-year-old no more than a “parasite” since it cannot serve the family, yet consumes [considerably more than a fetus]? Just where do you plan on drawing the line?
Report thisBy anonymous, June 12, 2010 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Who cares if they take a pill or not?
Fuck, if they want to take care of the problem they could always turn to abusing alcohol, drugs, and smoking.
Which would you rather have them doin?
Report thisBy purplewolf, June 11, 2010 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment
Want to know when live begins? Ask the IRS. You can only write a human baby off a dependent after it is born, up to that point it doesn’t exist as an individual, it is a parasite on the hosts body(woman)until it is born.Nuf sed!
Report this