#9
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:55:04 -0800
From: Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG>
Subject: New Plan B study
Courtesy of Jeff Fleischer on the Mother Jones blog
In the September/October issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported on how the
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee worked to block the
over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill. As the article noted:
"Religious groups like the Concerned Women for America and conservative members
of Congress also weighed in against allowing OTC sale of Plan B, maintaining
that access to the pill might cause young girls to be more promiscuous."
At the time, of course, there was no evidence of that actually happening. And as
Wednesday's Washington Post reports, a new University of California study found
that access to Plan B did not lead to women engaging in more risky sexual
behavior:
The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more than 1
1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as those who had to
pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led the study authors to
conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called the morning-after pill, could
reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies while posing no apparent risk to
women.
The study contradicts a key claim made by opponents of easier access to Plan B
at a time when the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to decide on a
second application to allow nonprescription sales of the drug.
Once again, as this study shows, decisions that should be made on the basis of
science are following the wrong criteria.
Mother Jones Article: Christian Science?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_500.html
WA Post Article: Morning-After Pill Study Contradicts Claim by Foes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html
M
------
Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
Director, National Mentoring Center
Email: fulopm@nwrel.org
Website: http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 275-0121 (p)
(503) 275-0444 (f)
------------------------------
#10
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:09:26 -0500
From: Pamela Noah <pxnoah@DHR.STATE.GA.US>
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
Basis of science or sociology and human welfare??? I have no problem with those
who respect life rather than sneeze it away. I'm glad my mother considered my
life valuable.....
Science teaches us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Being a rationale adult is one thing, a young girl is another. Is there a pill
to take the guilt away??? What is good for others is often okay, until it
affects you and your home. Humans will engage in sexual behavior or risky
behaviors even more, if the consequences are removed. Do really need to write a
grant and do a 3 year study to figure this out? However, science will never be
able to remove all the consequences of individual actions. Is this country
really going in the right direction with all of this? Who is next to be
devalued, the elderly, the infirm, the poor, the disable??? Remember the
Niemoller quote:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time
there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemoller
Life is sacred. This truth is always present, whether we believe in it or not.
Pamela
>>> Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG> 01/06/05 11:55AM >>>
Courtesy of Jeff Fleischer on the Mother Jones blog
In the September/October issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported on how the
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee worked to block the
over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill. As the article noted:
"Religious groups like the Concerned Women for America and conservative members
of Congress also weighed in against allowing OTC sale of Plan B, maintaining
that access to the pill might cause young girls to be more promiscuous."
At the time, of course, there was no evidence of that actually happening. And as
Wednesday's Washington Post reports, a new University of California study found
that access to Plan B did not lead to women engaging in more risky sexual
behavior:
The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more than 1
1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as those who had to
pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led the study authors to
conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called the morning-after pill, could
reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies while posing no apparent risk to
women.
The study contradicts a key claim made by opponents of easier access to Plan B
at a time when the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to decide on a
second application to allow nonprescription sales of the drug.
Once again, as this study shows, decisions that should be made on the basis of
science are following the wrong criteria.
Mother Jones Article: Christian Science?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_500.html
WA Post Article: Morning-After Pill Study Contradicts Claim by Foes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html
M
------
Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
Director, National Mentoring Center
Email: fulopm@nwrel.org
Website: http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 275-0121 (p)
(503) 275-0444 (f)
------------------------------
#11
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:30:07 -0500
From: Shadia Garrison <shadia_g@WWW.AMSA.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
I think it's important as health educators that we understand and can therefore
educate others on what exactly Plan B is and what it is not.
This poster seems to believe Plan B is an "abortion pill." THis is false.
Plan B is a birth control pill - simply taken after the fact. Obviously, there's
more to it than that but that's it, in essence.
We all need to make sure we present facts, not (only) our personal beliefs and
values, to the public. Health educators present facts and science. If you don't
believe in abortion, that's fine, but please don't confuse the subjects. If you
don't believe in birth control, that's fine too, but people need to know the
difference and have the facts to make up their own minds.
Hope this is coherent enough - my mind is reeling.
Shadia Garrison, MPH
AMSA Foundation
-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Noah [mailto:pxnoah@DHR.STATE.GA.US]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 1:09 PM
To: HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
Basis of science or sociology and human welfare??? I have no problem with those
who respect life rather than sneeze it away. I'm glad my mother considered my
life valuable.....
Science teaches us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Being a rationale adult is one thing, a young girl is another. Is there a pill
to take the guilt away??? What is good for others is often okay, until it
affects you and your home. Humans will engage in sexual behavior or risky
behaviors even more, if the consequences are removed. Do really need to write a
grant and do a 3 year study to figure this out? However, science will never be
able to remove all the consequences of individual actions. Is this country
really going in the right direction with all of this? Who is next to be
devalued, the elderly, the infirm, the poor, the disable???
Remember the Niemoller quote:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time
there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemoller
Life is sacred. This truth is always present, whether we believe in it or not.
Pamela
>>> Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG> 01/06/05 11:55AM >>>
Courtesy of Jeff Fleischer on the Mother Jones blog
In the September/October issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported on how the
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee worked to block the
over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill. As the article noted:
"Religious groups like the Concerned Women for America and conservative members
of Congress also weighed in against allowing OTC sale of Plan B, maintaining
that access to the pill might cause young girls to be more promiscuous."
At the time, of course, there was no evidence of that actually happening. And as
Wednesday's Washington Post reports, a new University of California study found
that access to Plan B did not lead to women engaging in more risky sexual
behavior:
The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more than 1
1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as those who had to
pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led the study authors to
conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called the morning-after pill, could
reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies while posing no apparent risk to
women.
The study contradicts a key claim made by opponents of easier access to Plan B
at a time when the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to decide on a
second application to allow nonprescription sales of the drug.
Once again, as this study shows, decisions that should be made on the basis of
science are following the wrong criteria.
Mother Jones Article: Christian Science?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_500.html
WA Post Article: Morning-After Pill Study Contradicts Claim by Foes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html
M
------
Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
Director, National Mentoring Center
Email: fulopm@nwrel.org
Website: http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 275-0121 (p)
(503) 275-0444 (f)
------------------------------
#12
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:44:29 -0600
From: "Larson, Karl L" <KLarson@USI.EDU>
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
I would tandem on to what Shadia says with the notion that maybe what Mark and
Pam disagree on is not abotion, but rather philosophy. The question "When does
life begin" is as much philosophy (if not more than) as it is science.
Also, regarding the psychological and sociological impact of Plan B on the
user...the vast majority who choose this method of birth control do not or have
not taken a pregnancy test, so there is no "life" issue.
Perhaps some "what if I was..." but certainly not the same impact as someone 3
or 4 weeks into a pregnancy who clearly knows.
Just a thought...more food for debate I guess!
kll
-----Original Message-----
From: The HEDIR is operated by Mark J. Kittleson, SIUC [mailto:HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU]
On Behalf Of Shadia Garrison
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 12:30 PM
To: HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
I think it's important as health educators that we understand and can therefore
educate others on what exactly Plan B is and what it is not.
This poster seems to believe Plan B is an "abortion pill." THis is false.
Plan B is a birth control pill - simply taken after the fact.
Obviously, there's more to it than that but that's it, in essence.
We all need to make sure we present facts, not (only) our personal beliefs and
values, to the public. Health educators present facts and science. If you don't
believe in abortion, that's fine, but please don't confuse the subjects. If you
don't believe in birth control, that's fine too, but people need to know the
difference and have the facts to make up their own minds.
Hope this is coherent enough - my mind is reeling.
Shadia Garrison, MPH
AMSA Foundation
-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Noah [mailto:pxnoah@DHR.STATE.GA.US]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 1:09 PM
To: HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
Basis of science or sociology and human welfare??? I have no problem with those
who respect life rather than sneeze it away. I'm glad my mother considered my
life valuable.....
Science teaches us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Being a rationale adult is one thing, a young girl is another.
Is there a pill to take the guilt away??? What is good for others is often okay,
until it affects you and your home. Humans will engage in sexual behavior or
risky behaviors even more, if the consequences are removed. Do really need to
write a grant and do a 3 year study to figure this out? However, science will
never be able to remove all the consequences of individual actions. Is this
country really going in the right direction with all of this? Who is next to be
devalued, the elderly, the infirm, the poor, the disable??? Remember the
Niemoller
quote:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemoller
Life is sacred. This truth is always present, whether we believe in it or not.
Pamela
>>> Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG> 01/06/05 11:55AM >>>
Courtesy of Jeff Fleischer on the Mother Jones blog
In the September/October issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported on how the
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee worked to block the
over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill. As the article noted:
"Religious groups like the Concerned Women for America and conservative members
of Congress also weighed in against allowing OTC sale of Plan B, maintaining
that access to the pill might cause young girls to be more promiscuous."
At the time, of course, there was no evidence of that actually happening. And as
Wednesday's Washington Post reports, a new University of California study found
that access to Plan B did not lead to women engaging in more risky sexual
behavior:
The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more than 1
1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as those who had to
pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led the study authors to
conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called the morning-after pill, could
reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies while posing no apparent risk to
women.
The study contradicts a key claim made by opponents of easier access to Plan B
at a time when the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to decide on a
second application to allow nonprescription sales of the drug.
Once again, as this study shows, decisions that should be made on the basis of
science are following the wrong criteria.
Mother Jones Article: Christian Science?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_500.html
WA Post Article: Morning-After Pill Study Contradicts Claim by Foes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html
M
------
Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
Director, National Mentoring Center
Email: fulopm@nwrel.org
Website: http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 275-0121 (p)
(503) 275-0444 (f)
------------------------------
#13
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:54:35 -0800
From: Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Larson
I would tandem on to what Shadia says with the notion that maybe what Mark and
Pam disagree on is not abotion, but rather philosophy.
--------
Karl,
I am not in a debate with Pam or anyone else on this subject but rather was
simply passing on the context of a new study.
M
------
Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
Portland, OR
------------------------------
#14
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:53:23 -0800
From: Arissa Gabe <agabe@COMMONGROUNDWESTSIDE.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
I am sorry. I have to respond to this comment. Plan B, also known as ECPs, or a
term I truly dislike "the morning after pill" prevents pregnancy from occurring.
Even though you have 72 hours to take it after sexual intercourse, it DOES NOT
abort a fetus. The way it works is that it suppresses ovulation so a woman will
not release an egg from her ovary (exactly the same as birth control pills) and
if a woman does release an egg, then it thins her uterine lining, so the egg
will not have a place to implant (also, exactly the same as birth control
pills). The comments made below are comments about abortion, which Plan B or
Emergency Contraceptive Pills, are not. There should be no guilt of abortion
associated with ECPs because that is not what it is. Again, I must repeat that
ECPs prevent pregnancy. I am sure I am preaching to the choir, but it frustrates
me when I see comments such as these on a health education listserv.
-Arissa
Arissa Gabe, MHS
Development Coordinator
Common Ground - The Westside HIV Community Center
2012 Lincoln Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone (310) 314-5480 x117
Fax (310) 314-5487
-----Original Message-----
From: The HEDIR is operated by Mark J. Kittleson, SIUC [mailto:HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU]On
Behalf Of Pamela Noah
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 10:09 AM
To: HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU
Subject: Re: New Plan B study
Basis of science or sociology and human welfare??? I have no problem with those
who respect life rather than sneeze it away. I'm glad my mother considered my
life valuable.....
Science teaches us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Being a rationale adult is one thing, a young girl is another. Is there a pill
to take the guilt away??? What is good for others is often okay, until it
affects you and your home. Humans will engage in sexual behavior or risky
behaviors even more, if the consequences are removed. Do really need to write a
grant and do a 3 year study to figure this out? However, science will never be
able to remove all the consequences of individual actions. Is this country
really going in the right direction with all of this? Who is next to be
devalued, the elderly, the infirm, the poor, the disable???
Remember the Niemoller quote:
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time
there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemoller
Life is sacred. This truth is always present, whether we believe in it or not.
Pamela
>>> Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG> 01/06/05 11:55AM >>>
Courtesy of Jeff Fleischer on the Mother Jones blog
In the September/October issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported on how the
FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee worked to block the
over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill. As the article noted:
"Religious groups like the Concerned Women for America and conservative members
of Congress also weighed in against allowing OTC sale of Plan B, maintaining
that access to the pill might cause young girls to be more promiscuous."
At the time, of course, there was no evidence of that actually happening. And as
Wednesday's Washington Post reports, a new University of California study found
that access to Plan B did not lead to women engaging in more risky sexual
behavior:
The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more than 1
1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as those who had to
pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led the study authors to
conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called the morning-after pill, could
reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies while posing no apparent risk to
women.
The study contradicts a key claim made by opponents of easier access to Plan B
at a time when the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to decide on a
second application to allow nonprescription sales of the drug.
Once again, as this study shows, decisions that should be made on the basis of
science are following the wrong criteria.
Mother Jones Article: Christian Science?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_500.html
WA Post Article: Morning-After Pill Study Contradicts Claim by Foes http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html
M
------
Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
Director, National Mentoring Center
Email: fulopm@nwrel.org
Website: http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 275-0121 (p)
(503) 275-0444 (f)
------------------------------
#15
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:23:45 -0500
From: "Morgan, Winthrop" <WMorgan@AIR.ORG>
Subject: 7 Easy Things You Can to Do to Combat Heart Disease in Women on
February 4.
Dear Fellow HEDIR members:
Friday, February 4, 2005, is National Wear Red Day-a day when Americans
nationwide will take women's health to heart by wearing red to show their
support for women's heart disease awareness.
The statistics are alarming:
- Heart disease is the #1 killer of women.
- One in three women dies of heart disease; one in 30 dies of breast cancer.
The good news is that both men and women can lower their risk of heart disease
by as much as 82 percent by leading a healthy lifestyle.
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, part of the National Institutes
of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and other partner
organizations introduced the Heart Truth campaign and the Red Dress as the
national symbol for women and heart disease awareness.
You can join this national awareness movement by:
1. Wearing red on February 4, and encouraging your family, friends, and
coworkers to do the same. Anyone can participate by showing off a favorite red
dress, shirt, or tie.
2. Giving a talk on women and heart disease. (see below for speakers
resources)
3. Sending out an e-mail alert to your network of colleagues. (Sample
available.)
4. Printing an article in your local newspaper. (Drop-in article
available.)
5. Getting a Public Service Announcement aired on your local radio station (PSA
available.) 6. Printing out and distribute fact sheets on women and heart
disease.
(No permission required to reproduce or reprint.) 7. Wearing the official Red
Dress Pin.
For more ideas and resources (including samples of all of the above and the
official Red Dress Pin) to help you participate in National Wear Red Day, please
visit http://www.hearttruth.gov.
Regards,
Win
Winthrop Morgan, MPH, CeM
American Institutes for Research
10720 Columbia Pike, Suite 500
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Tel. 301.592.3347
------------------------------
#16
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:52:30 -0500
From: rick petosa <petosa.1@OSU.EDU>
Subject: I am confused
I am confused by professional health educators debating the finer points of
abortion/contraception/rights/choice etc.
We are well aware of the many beliefs, perspectives and science surrounding
these issues.
We are aware of these issues because we live in a diverse collection of cultures
that legally protects much of this diversity.
So our job is to serve the health education/promotion needs of diverse
communities, all of them.
rick petosa
>I am sorry. I have to respond to this comment. Plan B, also known as
>ECPs, or a term I truly dislike "the morning after pill" prevents
>pregnancy from occurring. Even though you have 72 hours to take it
>after sexual intercourse, it DOES NOT abort a fetus. The way it works
>is that it suppresses ovulation so a woman will not release an egg from
>her ovary (exactly the same as birth control pills) and if a woman does
>release an egg, then it thins her uterine lining, so the egg will not
>have a place to implant (also, exactly the same as birth control
>pills). The comments made below are comments about abortion, which
>Plan B or Emergency Contraceptive Pills, are not. There should be no
>guilt of abortion associated with ECPs because that is not what it is.
>Again, I must repeat that ECPs prevent pregnancy. I am sure I am
>preaching to the choir, but it frustrates me when I see comments such as these
on a health education listserv.
>
>-Arissa
>
>Arissa Gabe, MHS
>Development Coordinator
>Common Ground - The Westside HIV Community Center
>2012 Lincoln Boulevard
>Santa Monica, CA 90405
>Phone (310) 314-5480 x117
>Fax (310) 314-5487
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The HEDIR is operated by Mark J. Kittleson, SIUC
>[mailto:HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU]On Behalf Of Pamela Noah
>Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 10:09 AM
>To: HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU
>Subject: Re: New Plan B study
>
>
>Basis of science or sociology and human welfare??? I have no problem
>with those who respect life rather than sneeze it away. I'm glad my
>mother considered my life valuable.....
>
>Science teaches us for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>Being a rationale adult is one thing, a young girl is another. Is there
>a pill to take the guilt away??? What is good for others is often okay,
>until it affects you and your home. Humans will engage in sexual
>behavior or risky behaviors even more, if the consequences are removed.
>Do really need to write a grant and do a 3 year study to figure this
>out? However, science will never be able to remove all the
>consequences of individual actions. Is this country really going in the
>right direction with all of this? Who is next to be devalued, the elderly, the
infirm, the poor, the disable???
>Remember the Niemoller quote:
>
>"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up
>because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't
>speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
>unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
>a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to
speak up."
>-Martin Niemoller
>
>Life is sacred. This truth is always present, whether we believe in it
>or not.
>
>Pamela
>
> >>> Mark Fulop <fulopm@NWREL.ORG> 01/06/05 11:55AM >>>
>Courtesy of Jeff Fleischer on the Mother Jones blog
>
>In the September/October issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported
>on how the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee worked to
>block the over-the-counter sale of the Plan B morning-after pill. As
>the article noted: "Religious groups like the Concerned Women for
>America and conservative members of Congress also weighed in against
>allowing OTC sale of Plan B, maintaining that access to the pill might
>cause young girls to be more promiscuous."
>
>At the time, of course, there was no evidence of that actually
>happening. And as Wednesday's Washington Post reports, a new University
>of California study found that access to Plan B did not lead to women
>engaging in more risky sexual behavior:
>
>The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more
>than 1 1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as
>those who had to pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led
>the study authors to conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called
>the morning-after pill, could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies
>while posing no apparent risk to women.
>
>The study contradicts a key claim made by opponents of easier access to
>Plan B at a time when the Food and Drug Administration is preparing to
>decide on a second application to allow nonprescription sales of the
>drug.
>
>Once again, as this study shows, decisions that should be made on the
>basis of science are following the wrong criteria.
>
>Mother Jones Article: Christian Science?
>http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_500.html
>
>WA Post Article: Morning-After Pill Study Contradicts Claim by Foes
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html
>
>M
> ------
>Mark P. Fulop, MA, MPH
>Director, National Mentoring Center
>Email: fulopm@nwrel.org
>Website: http://www.nwrel.org/mentoring
>
>Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
>101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
>Portland, OR 97204
>(503) 275-0121 (p)
>(503) 275-0444 (f)
rick petosa
associate professor
health promotion and exercise science
the ohio state university
columbus, ohio 43210
petosa.1@osu.edu
------------------------------
#17
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:06:08 -0500
From: Lisa Lieberman <llhealth@OPTONLINE.NET>
Subject: Re: I am confused
Rick Petosa said:
"So our job is to serve the health education/promotion needs of diverse
communities, all of them."
Well put, Rick!
Lisa Lieberman, Ph.D., CHES
Healthy Concepts
29 Ardsley Drive
New City, NY 10956
845 638-1619
LLHealth@optonline.net
------------------------------