I fully support Dana L.

As a 65 year old woman, I am glad I do not have to deal with the religiously based newfound intrusion of government on women's reproductive decisions. Dana has described publicly the anguish she went through as a well educated forty year old woman married to a reasonable and caring husband and with no financial concerns in making her decisions. Just think of the turmoil and confusion an unmarried 18 year old girl (or even a 25 year old) must go through in attempting to find out information, obtain Plan B or fail to, or ultimately choosing an abortion. What if that pregnancy was a result of "domestic" rape? Women need to realize that neither this White House nor the state of Virginia is on your side.

more of the same.

looking at the silver lining and ignoring the cloud.

yes, well, it is just too bad that Plan B isn't the only thing that might encourage teenage sex and pregnancies. But eventually the Republican Righteous will eliminate everything that might have a negative result. Unless it helps to keep them in power or makes money for them or their campaign contributors.

Funny, does money help to increase sex and unwanted pregnancies among teenagers?

But then again, don't we want American youth to bring 4, 5, 6 children into the world by age 25?

Seems that way.

Much easier if they have a child every two years, then every 9 months, yes?

My girlfriend and I don't want any children. I will have a vasectomy done soon. Dana L's article and related posts have demonstrated to us that having a perscription for Plan B just in case is very important.

Did you forget about Planned Parenthood?

Doug Bandow's blog entry was apalling. I hope someone makes him feel like a pariah the next time he needs medical treatment for a condition he "could have" avoided. Does he eat to much? Not exercise enough? Does he smoke? Drink? Drive to fast? Not wear a seatbelt? How irresponsible. Quick, call in the shame police!

Amazingly, Bandow mocks the notion that there's a connection between the Bush Administration's position on sexual and reproductive health and an individual woman's ability to access treatment. I guess he's the last to know. Perhaps a colleague could fill him in on what's been going on in this area for the last, say, 6 years (he can study up on the rest of it later). Someone should help him, before he writes again.

Good for you, Dana, for having the fortitude to tell your story.

"Most bloggers don't think it's the doctor who failed, they think it's Dana who did. "

How on earth did you compute this? The 16 trackback links the Post gives here have at least 10 reactions that support Dana and condemn her doctors.. I'm sure the pro-life section of the blogosphere blames Dana, but the feminist section of the blogosphere -- Pandagon, Feministe, Feministing, and their friends -- is furious with her doctors.

If you're going to say "most people believe X", you really ought to back the statement up.

It doesn't really affect the substance of this discussion, but I'm surprised by your credulity concerning the comments from a self-identified "former Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health at the FDA."

Among other things, one can't help but suspect that the true Susan Wood knows the difference between "it's" and "its."

Does no one find it reprehensible that a doctor prescribes a Category X medication (one which should never be taken if there is a chance of pregnancy) and then denies a Plan B prescription? If, when the Category X drug was prescribed, the doctor had stated the risks and had provided alternative resources for contraceptives (written and orally) because the s/he didn't want involvement in reproductive issues, that would have been responsible. But as presented in the Outlook piece, that doctor neither provided adequate warning nor dealt with the consequences. I'd say that is a serious ethical and moral lapse.

Does nobody see how ridiculous -- and sick -- this story is?

The couple have only two children. There's no room in their puny, shriveled hearts for a third--so their solution is to have the child killed.

And this is somebody else's fault?

Disgusting.

TO j.a.m and others who are critical of Dana L.'s decision: until you have been in the exact same situation, how dare you presume to know what is best for her and criticize the decision that Dana and others like her have had to make. When will you all understand that not everyone wants the same things in life, and what may be good for you and your family may not be right for the next person? Every individual has the right to live their life as they choose, and if that means that they don't want children, only want two children, or want 15 children that is up to them to decide, not the goverment.
Women in this country are being done a huge disservice by having their reproductive decisions taken from them and put into the hands of others. Don't you think it's up to the woman to decide if she wants to have children, not her doctor, pharmacist or president? Don't you think the woman knows her emotional state, financial state, and career path better than these other people, so she can make a decision as to whether or not she can ably care for a child? Please, all of you who think you know what is best for the women of this country, think again: do you really think it is fair to force women into motherhood who are unwilling or not ready? If someone forced you into a lifelong committment that you didn't want, do you think it would be fair to you?

The only innocent victim in this story is the child who would have been. If one must kill one's young and speak of it, perhaps a word or two of regret for a life lost could be squeezed between the finger-pointing and self-pity.

Another reason this sort of drug should be readily available: some of us have dangers involved with pregnancy and need to prepare for it before going down that path. Sometimes accidents happen (I'm not talking about unprotected sex; I mean that despite using two forms of birth control, you could still end up on the wrong side of a very small percentage of possibilities.) and a family should be able to decide for itself - without interference from the nosy religious people and their stand-ins at the FDA.

In my case, I am on a number of medicines that - according to my doctors - will require two to three months of weaning off before i can try to get pregnant. The effects on a fetus could be dangerous if I began a pregnancy while on these medicines. We are very careful and follow the doctors' instructions to a tee... but no birth control is 100%. And while abstinence and surgical alteration of the reproductive systems may look like options to some, they're not options for a healthy relationship. (At least not in our eyes. I'm neither giving up my relationship with my husband nor our ability to have children just to suit the bible thumpers.)

So what would I do if I found myself pregnant before we were able to prepare properly? Would the FDA, the presidnet, and his "base" prefer that I have an abortion? That I have a child born with birth defects? Seems to me that access to a medicine that would obviate the need for that choice would be preferable. (And even if I am some exception to the rule, seems to me that no woman or her family should have to pass a litmus test to meet some arbitrary govt requirement.)

Dana never should have been forced to seek an abortion. Her doctor failed her... his oath.. the entire health system. he failed the fetus that he was trying to protect. It's disgraceful... and a good lesson to learn. Certainly, I will discuss this with my doctor and get a prescription to tuck away just in case. I appreciate the knowledge gained in these articles.

Nobody forced anybody to do anything. A couple voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with the utterly and entirely predictable result that a new life was created. The tragedy is that they then lacked the maturity and generosity to welcome that child. But there's more: They publish an article in a major newspaper blathering about these intimate matters and portraying themselves as some kind of victims! It is just all too, too weird.

I think what happened to Dana...er excuse me- the consequences that happened as a result of Dana's actions, are unfortunate, but I agree that her anger is misplaced.

I'm pro-choice, pro-Plan B, and pro taking responsiblity. That is the missing ingredient here- taking responsibility. It is ultimately Dana's responsibility to ensure she has contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. While I think Bush is a horrible President, I don't think this is his fault, unless Dana is indeed Laura Bush...

Unfortunately, I've been reading there is a movement to limit contraception. I don't know why people believe that sex is sinful the most grevious sin of all unless you are planning to procreate. Personally, I believe having children you can't support or take care of is more of a sin. Forcing women to have children when they can't afford them or know they are not mentally able to cope with them is a sin. To my way of thinking it is a sin not to love people you perceive as sinners, sexual or otherwise; it is God's business to determine who's sinning and how. Dana L.'s article should be read by all women. It could happen to you, you know.

The doctor and the FDA may have gotten off easy this time. When the FDA put politics ahead of health, or when a doctor puts their own religious beliefs ahead of the welfare of their patient, there is an opportunity for a successful lawsuit against them.

I wish I were surprised that so many people are so willing to cast the first stone.

Mr. and Mrs. "L" never heard of adoption? If they honestly couldn't bring themselves to raise their child, there is no shortage of loving couples who would have opened their hearts and their homes without hesitation. The article offers no justification for taking the life of a blameless third person.

Contrary to an above post, no one is casting stones. Mr. and Mrs. "L" chose to publicize themselves. It is they who invited the public to discuss this tragedy, for reasons only they themselves can know (other than the political motivation they explicitly acknowledge).

Mr. and Mrs. "L" never heard of adoption? If they honestly couldn't bring themselves to raise their child, there is no shortage of loving couples who would have opened their hearts and their homes without hesitation. The article offers no justification for taking the life of a blameless third person.

Contrary to an above post, no one is casting stones. Mr. and Mrs. "L" chose to publicize themselves. It is they who invited the public to discuss this tragedy, for reasons only they themselves can know (other than the political motivation they explicitly acknowledge).

"This all could have been stopped way before this baby was conceived if they had just let me have that damn pill."

If you want to be angry, if you want to be disgusted and upset, please carefully consider the life of this baby (Dana's words) which was extinguished.

I find it alarming and shocking that no one has sympathy for the helpless baby, only for Dana L. What has this society become?

What a supreme joke. If this article wasn't supremely sickening, it would be funny. Has everyone forgotten personal responsibility? There are a million and a half ways to prevent pregnancy these days, so don't blame the president, Walgreens or the dog if you forget to put your stupid diaphragm in or take other measures. Everyone is so concerned with themselves and their "inconvenience" over having a child (horrors!) the only solution is to kill it. Great. Grow up, Dana, grow a heart, and quit blaming everyone else for your problems. Oh, and as one of a number of infertile women out there who have had to struggle to get pregnant in the first place, you make me ill. May God have mercy on you, and everyone else who feels it necessary to "play God" in determining who lives and who does not.

Dana, you disgust me. Quit using your murdered child to promote your "I hate Bush" agenda. I would not be surprised if you intentionally caused the pregnancy just so you could get another slam in on George W. The word repugnant does not begin to describe your actions.

While I find Dana L.'s word abhorrent, I'd be truly surprised if there are other feelings about the whole specific situation that she has not shared with the public (or perhaps processed fully herself). Greg above put it well:
"If one must kill one's young and speak of it, perhaps a word or two of regret for a life lost could be squeezed between the finger-pointing and self-pity."
Even if she did have that "damn pill" (which is a very good way of describing it), no problem would be solved. And I think she knows that--and doesn't want to admit it. While it would be easy to write her off and flame Dana L. for her blatantly self-absorbed description of the whole "inconvenient" situation, knowing she does have, or will have, feelings of regret, pain, not to mention possible physical ramifications, my heart instead goes out to her for the "choice" she made. And may her surviving children never discover this column. (Oh, and "Free woman," as you'll consider me a critic of Dana L., who, WP editors, is a mother of at least THREE, not "two," let me just say now, I do, in fact, know the difficulty of an unplanned pregnancy in a much more difficult situation than a married lawyer would ever know. And because God has given women such power and ability, I'm handling single motherhood just fine. No matter how "inconvenient" "unplanned" pregnancies may be, getting outside ourselves and putting the vulnerable ahead of ourselves is so much more "empowering" than taking a pill that enables our weak selfishness. And here's where I roar.)

One last thing to "Pro Life": If we believe in the sanctity of lives of the unborn, then remember, we believe in the sanctity of the lives of all humans, including Dana L.'s, regardless of her words. Have compassion. If you're truly educated on the issue, you know the post-abortive risks Dana L. and a permissive culture that, rather than help women in need with help in parenthood just points them toward a clinic, have now brought upon herself.

I don't want anyone to die, be harmed, mutilated or spindled for believing in abortion, and that includes Dana L. I feel SORRY for her, because God will ultimately judge her, as he will me, and for the fact that she doesn't value life. However, I am sick and tired of people throwing blame on Bush for everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of time, basically going back to the fall of the Roman Empire. As adults, we are endowed with personal responsibility. Unless George W. snuck into her bedroom and hid her diaphragm, he is NOT responsible for her slip-up. He also did not hide the Yellow Pages, which lists a number of nice doctors willing to cut, snip and remove male and female reproductive organs. Oh, and he also has not banned condoms, birth control, NuvaRing, DepoProvera, etc. from drug and grocery stores. This woman's child is the victim, not her. I do not feel sorry for anyone who has so many birth control options and chose to utilize none of them before her passions got the best of her. What the heck did she do before Plan B??

I'm not sure what speed of reading is appropriate when it comes to this "blog". But a high speed works pretty well, I would bet.

There are certain "givens" here. let's deal with them first.

Everyone has their own opinon. However the opinions of others are supposed to be respected, if not outright obeyed. Doesn't that work both ways, yes or no?

This is supposedly a pro-choice country. It is legal to have an abortion, we have a constitutionally protected right to have abortions. This is not a debate about personal responsibility or the issue of life and when it begins (for those of you who seem to be unable to recognize this, or, who wish to turn it into one). This is an issue of personal choice that was hampered as a result of government meddling, which happened as a result of religious intervention.

What does "personal responsibility" have to do with this? Face it: if that is your primary concern, then no one should be allowed to have an abortion. That's not the case, yes? So why keep throwing that old bananna back into the discussion? Do you think that this woman has no understanding of the concept, that she does not want to be personally responsible? She does. Just not for another child.

That is what they call a "personal choice". Is that so difficult to understand?

Now assuming that we have gotten past that "ground rule" together...

the point of her article is that she wanted to avoid having a medical abortion by having a "medicinal abortion" (on this point I agree, a fertilized egg is going to become a child unless you prevent nature from taking its course). She was prevented from obtaining the morning-after pill by the fact that no doctor would proscribe it for her. There is, apparently, no rule or law that says that any of them HAVE TO do this at her request.

Which is stupid because it forces her to have a medical abortion.

That's all this story is about.

It is not about why she is having an abortion, or, what kind of person she is for having one. It is about why she had to have one when it was entirely avoidable.

Don't try to turn this story into something it isn't, and/or, use it as an opportunity to argue your own agenda instead of the issue that is central to the story.

It's really that simple.

If you cannot stick to the point, if you manipulate everything that you come across into yet another stage for you to present your own point of view, how do you expect to have a reasonable, intellectual conversation with anyone, unless they want to get on that stage and preach along with you? You people spend a lot of tme and energy preaching to your own choir. People who don't agree with you just tune you out, so what do you gain?

If she agreed with you would this story have been printed?

Do you think that you are going to change the morals and ethics of a 40 year old woman?

On that note, what did she think that she was going to change, by writing that story...

Perhaps, I too must say, "it is what it is".

You people are not going to change anything or anyone until you begin to realize that there is merit in values other than the ones that you currently have and promote. And that applies to all of us. No one is going to force someone to change their opinions by force of morals. Merely by force of reason. Morality is not something that people think about in a rational manner.

And if you can't listen to others and respect their opinions and think and talk about what they are saying, if all that you can do is criticize them for even saying what they say or for getting into that situation in the first place, why should anyone listen to you? If you think that she is stupid or immoral, and that's all there is to it, then what is the point of discussing anything with you? Clearly you are right and she is wrong, yes?

Go back to church and tell your pastor or priest that you are a fine Lutheran/Baptist/Catholic or whatever. You have no purpose here other than to preach and condemm. Because you are not prepared to consider, you see no value in considering, you are not even able to intelligently consider, the opnions of those who do not think the way that you do. You dismiss them out of hand, because you do not agree with them already.

I mean, it seems like this woman has even *less* credibility, with some people, because she is an intelligent and experienced woman.

It is like some people don't realize that even intelligent and experienced women get pregnant when they don't want to get pregnant, when they don't want to have a child.

The issue of unwanted pregnancy occurs in all walks of life. Casting moral judgements solves nothing. And, as shown, creates problems when there should be solutions, when solutions are needed.

Yes, I am sure that she would have preferred not to have to go through all of this. In many ways. I am sure that she will do her best to avoid it. But mistakes are made, in life. Are we not all human?

Why do you wish to act like God?

Our ogovernment, in many ways, makes allowances for human mistakes, like unwanted pregnancies. Yet the Administration undermines the will of the people and the will of the courts, with its actions. That is all that this story is about. Please do not try to twist it into something else.

...

last but not least, just as important. If making access to abortion drugs and abortion procedures entices "irresponsible" women to "irresponsibly" get pregnant, then why not say the same about any federally- or state-sponsored program, in terms of enticing unwanted or negative results?

...doesn't letting people out of jail entice them to commit more crimes? Doesn't allowing people to file their own taxes entice them to defraud the government and abuse the tax system, indeed, the entire economic structure of the country?

Why should anyone be allowed to vote for anyone other than the Republican candidate? Wouldn't that encourage treason and terrorism?

How about the mere fact that men and women are allowed to keep their sex organs? Doesn't that encourage rape, welfare abuse, and the murder of children, both born and unborn? Shouldn't our government remove all testes and ovum at birth, to prevent women from getting pregnant...selling their eggs for cash...trapping men into marriages?

Perhaps the FDA can mandate that every woman takes an infertility pill and then decide when women can get pregnant, indeed, by whom. I wonder what the Vatican would say about that.

Just imagine the abortions that would be eliminated, though!

The world would be a much better place if we were all powerless, wouldn't it? Just strap us down and plug us in to the 'ol Federal Government computer. Run everyones' life just the way the Bible says it ought to be run.

"However, I am sick and tired of people throwing blame on Bush for everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of time, basically going back to the fall of the Roman Empire."

please identify one person who does this.

"If you're truly educated on the issue, you know the post-abortive risks Dana L. and a permissive culture that, rather than help women in need with help in parenthood just points them toward a clinic, have now brought upon herself."

...so women in need who are pointed towards a clinic by our culture do not recieve help from clinics that they are pointed to?

they are responsible (along with her, of course) for the risks that she faces, now, for having an abortion?

And if she were to suffer as a result, would you say that this is justification for banning abortions, or justification for improving the abortion services offered by the clinic?

I'm just wondering.

Because the mental state of the patient has a lot to do with her recuperation, you know. Calling her an evil witch for even having an abortion, will have serious side effects.

But maybe she too can blame that on the government.

"While I find Dana L.'s word abhorrent, I'd be truly surprised if there are other feelings about the whole specific situation that she has not shared with the public (or perhaps processed fully herself). "

...or that you can't put in her mouth, yourself.

Not being happy with just twisting her words around, or telling us all what the real significance is of what she has done.

"While it would be easy to write her off and flame Dana L. for her blatantly self-absorbed description of the whole "inconvenient" situation,"

...yes, I'm sure that it would be so easy for you to do that.

You could do it with hardly a second thought.

And that's probably how you would do it.

"Dana, you disgust me. Quit using your murdered child to promote your "I hate Bush" agenda. I would not be surprised if you intentionally caused the pregnancy just so you could get another slam in on George W."

...in fact I'm sure that every woman in the DC abortion clinics right now, got pregnant just for this reason.

In fact the liberal media is probably behind it all.

Seek help, guy.

"Grow up, Dana, grow a heart, and quit blaming everyone else for your problems. "

she wasn't blaming anyone else for her problems.

She was blaming her problem in obtaining Plan B medicines for the fact that she had to get an abortion, which, supposedly, the moral right want to keep people from doing. The irony of this story is that their efforts in making it more difficult to obtain morning-after pills cause people to have abortions they would otherwise be able to avoid.

Grow up and learn how to read the fine print on the side of the cereal box. And, learn why you should read it.

...last but not least as indeed I too am finding myself to read more that is nonsense than sense, in this thread.

There are 300 million people in this country, just about. Figure 50% of them are of reproductive age. That's easily 150 million men and women having sex, almost continuously. Somewhere in the US, two people are copulating as you read this sentence.

Now, you know that birth control is not 100% effective, right?

You know that even people who want to have children, who are financially and morally good parents, have sex?

Do you want them all to be pregnant, on a continuous basis? I would guess not. So you assume that most if not all of them are using birth control when the woman is not already pregnant? Yes?

Well, what do you think is going to happen?

Just like this woman, a large number of women are going to get pregnant when they really are not ready to have a child, or, ready to have an additional child.

Do you think that these babies are not being killed, somehow?

This is a fact of life.

It's time for you moralists to take your heads out of the sand and deal with it.

The sheer fact that people have reproductive organs and a healthy sex drive makes this sort of thing inevitable.

Regardless of their morals.

Somewhere, some woman who is almost just like you, morally, is finding out right now that she is pregnant. When she cannot handle another child.

Shall we insist that they all carry the child to term, and then put them in an orphanage, somewhere? Sell them to the highest bidder? Or a combination of the two?

Or maybe we will just outlaw birth control and abortion entirely? That would make you happy?

If not...if you are not prepared for either of these two possibilities...then please cease and desist with your outrageously unrealistic and pigeon-headed moralizing. About pregnancy, and abortion, and "personal responsibility". It seems that this woman is being a lot more responsible, personally, than most of the people who have posted in this thread. Who just don't want to deal with the realities of the world they live in.

Who want to live in a fantasyland in their own head, and make everyone else live in it, too.

...how much more of this do I need to read?

"Does nobody see how ridiculous -- and sick -- this story is?

The couple have only two children. There's no room in their puny, shriveled hearts for a third--so their solution is to have the child killed.

And this is somebody else's fault?"

That is not what the story was about. She never blamed anyone else for the fact that she got pregnant, just for the fact that it was difficult for her to avoid having to have an abortion.

And why do you say they have no "room in their heart" for a third child?

Where did you find this in her letter?

Or did you just write that in yourself?

...so you have no "room in your mind" for the truth?

Lady, it's people like you who give democracy a bad name. She wants to have two children, she is happy with her life. She doesn't want to have three, or four, or 14 children. It is not that she does not have the capability to love, support and nurture a third child. It just doesn't fit into her view of her life, for her, her husband and her two children. And that will happen again and again and again as that diaphram prevents the conception of yet another fertilized egg.

Try to deal with this in a compassionate, loving manner, as you tend to your 14 children and bring a 15th to term.

"It is ultimately Dana's responsibility to ensure she has contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. While I think Bush is a horrible President, I don't think this is his fault, unless Dana is indeed Laura Bush... "

...and even then it wouldn't be his fault. Laura let him do it to her, so it's her fault.

..she's not saying that it's Bushs' fault that she got pregnant. She is saying that she would not have gotten pregnant if she had timely access to drugs that she supposedly has access to through her doctor.

And the fact that she could not get them in time, in this case, she is blaming on Bush, yes. And his administration and the policies of his administration.

It depends on who you want to blame for what.

But.

Be very careful who you blame for what.

Blaming someone wrongly can lead to a lot of trouble, as I am sure that you know, I am merely agreeing with you ;)

" A couple voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with the utterly and entirely predictable result that a new life was created."

...Good God, can you imagine a world where each and every time a couple had sex without protection, the woman would get pregnant?

I'm just pointing out the lack of realism in the original comment. Nothing else to say.

but seriously, think about it. They have two kids. They've been married for how many years? And they dated for how many years before that? You think they don't know about the need for birth control?

How many people do you think this happens to, every day?

Really, this guy sounds like someone who has never had a real girlfriend.

"The tragedy is that they then lacked the maturity and generosity to welcome that child"

even if true, you gotta make a choice in life. You can't have the child every time the woman gets pregnant, and you can't let the woman get pregnant every time you have sex.

That's just unrealistic.

So, "somewhere in your heart", find room for a woman who decided that having an abortion was a good idea, even if she could have supported the 3rd child.

Otherwise you are INSISTING that women have children if they become pregnant.

Which, I would say, is easy for you to say, as you don't have to raise them. Refereeing from the bench is not allowed in this game.