Okay, it was just a letter, but I'll take it.
A few weeks ago, I was dismayed to read an article in the Sac News & Review about the emergency contraception pill, Plan B, in which the writer implied that with this new magic option, things like condoms just weren't needed anymore.
I ranted over at MBSacramento And sent a slightly different version of the rant to SN&R directly. They printed it this week - along with reactions from many other readers (most of which dealt with the conception/morality issue directly).
In related news: The FDA, bowing to, eh, science, finally approved Plan B for sale over-the-counter.
To women 18 and over.
It's a start.
The article linked above is slightly different now than it was when I first read it this afternoon. It still includes the little quote-gems about how girls under 18 can't be trusted to deal with medicine, justifying the age-restriction (which some advocacy groups decry as unlikely to be enforced).
The best part (which may or may not be in this particular article) is the sexual predator argument. See, men over 18 can buy Plan B as well and with Plan B available over-the-counter, adult men will buy EC in bulk and force underage girls with whom they have sex or whom they have raped or molested to take the pill.
What about condoms? Do condoms pave the way for a sexual predator free-for-all?
For f*ck sake - does anyone actually listen to these arguments before including them in otherwise rational articles?
My prediction: an upcoming national campaign to have pharmacists sign pledges against distributing the drug as well as state-level legislation (oh hell, with this administration, may as well make it federal) giving pharmacists the right to refuse to sell Plan B (or [insert offensive drug of the week here]) as well as the right to refuse to call over someone else in the pharmacy to assist the customer.