the hassle of getting emergency contraception

Read this WOMAN'S ACCOUNT of trying to get emergency BC or the "morning after pill."


More women need to be aware that you can now order the stuff online and they will overnight it to you. No one will hassle you or ask you rude and intrusive questions.


Anonymous said...

I think it is great that you are alerting women to this important but not widely known fact. Women do not have to feel that they are at the mercy of anti-reproductive rights pharmacists. I am sure that the usual "brave souls" who criticize you openly while refusing to reveal their names will crucify you for this entry. Keep spreading truth and educating the masses!

karrie said...


I find it kind of amazing that she even answered the marriage question. My reply would have been "none of your fucking business."-- even though I am married.

I know a few women who asked for and carry a prescription for emergency contraception, just in case. While that does not prevent wacky pharmacists from intervening, it may save valuable time.

There is a way to DIY by taking a double-dose of normal BCPs too,right?(I know I've read that, but do not remember the details, so maybe it is no longer advised.) Of cousre, that would only work if you kept a pack at all times.

Debra said...

When I called my doctor's office with an emergency request for Plan B, I deliberately dodged his return calls because he is a "christain" Christain. I did get the pills and never returned his calls.

Jane said...

Thank you Katie for posting this. I wish all women had more information about this. These two sites are great:

Anonymous said...

I don't mean to complain---love your blog, blah, blah...BUT every time I follow a link off your site, i have your web url to contend with, no matter how many pages I link forward. Its a real pain because I like to save interesting pages, and I can't do that, because your URL is staring me in the face, rather than the URL of the page I'm actually interested in. Please make it go away!! Thanks. I promise to come and visit your page when I"m done browsing...

Laura Linger said...

Karrie: yes, but that isn't the point. No woman should have to stockpile the Pill and DIY. Morning-after pills are legitimate medication and no woman should ever be hassled about her right to take it.

As is always the case, this is only going to change through th court system. Women like the one in the article needs to make it very expensive for whatever pharmacy, doctor, or jackboot hassled her about her wishes to maintain her own reproductive destiny. Every single time there is a refusal, it MUST result in a whopper of a lawsuit.

JesusFreak ideals go out the window as soon as they become too costly to the companies that espouse them.

For what it's worth, I had my tubal ligation at 35, in February. I have no children of my own, and that is by choice. By design. I finally got tired of the Pill making me sick every month, so I decided to take the plunge.

I have a woman gynecological surgeon, and even she quizzed me over and over again if I am "doing the right thing." Uh, why would I be volunteering for invasive surgery if I wasn't certain that this was the right course to take in my life? I got quizzed by the nurses. The other doctors at the hospital. No one seemed quite able to believe that a) I was a woman in her thirties who had never had children; b) that this was indeed by choice; c) that I was married, or that my husband agreed with my choice; and d) I was so adamant about not having children, I was willing to have a tubal ligation to ensure that a baby was no longer a possibility.

"Yes," I finally started to say to people who would ask. "I only fuck for fun."

Anonymous said...

the reason they ask you Laura is because a lot of people change their minds. at your age its less likely but plenty of women who are "sure" they did not want kids at 22 have changed their mind later. that is not to insult your decision, it is just to say they dont want people coming back in a few years whining about wishing they hadnt done it and wanting a reversal (which is FAR more difficult than the original surgery). a lot of people DO get sterilized on a whim and later regret it. they simply want to make sure you have really really thought it out. and a lot of people apparently dont before they submit to this.

Sarada said...

I don't understand why "pro-choice" women are so willing to force their right to have legal abortion or contraception available at the sacrifice of the religious liberties of other people. If someone feels that by cooperating in what they feel is an immoral practice, why should we force them to do it? We allow men who object to military service to be exempted, and military service is also supposedly for the greater good.

Abortion, contraception, Plan B (whichever it is) are all legal to be sold and obtained in the United States. But that doesn't mean they must be offered. If we're going to hassle the one of the four pharmacists on staff at one of twenty phamacies in a town, then why not require that every OB/GYN offer all "reproductive services?" Heck, not all Planned Parenthood branches offer abortion services. We should sue them, too.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is going to be available everywhere.

And where the hell are all of you guys when I need you over my "right to choose" VBAC?

Laura Linger said...

With all due respect, anonymous, that doesn't matter to me, nor should it figure into whether or not they can manage to do what I wish without hassling me. You're absolutely correct, of course, as to the reason, which makes me terribly angry (the reason does, not that you stated it). If the person gets tubalized at 20 and then later regrets it, that is HER responsibility and HER cross to bear as a result of HER decision. She, nor any other woman, needs a doctor (usually male) second-guessing her medical decisions and guise it as "concern" when it is actually "please don't sue me" or "how dare you do this, you dirty whore."

I am burdened with a ridiculously high IQ, and I know my own mind. I discussed the decision with my husband. It is ludicrous to play armchair quarterback to my personal reproductive decisions, no matter how supposedly well intentioned.

Oh, and for every woman who supposedly "regrets" having the procedure done, I will reckon that there are five childfree women who swear that it's the smartest thing that they have ever done. Like me.


Laura Linger said...


I'm a recovering alcoholic and do not touch alcohol.

So...should I seek work as a bartender, and then refuse to serve the patrons at the pub, citing personal beliefs?

Sarada said...

Is it fair to change the rules on people and then demand a change of profession? Most of these pharmacists do not have a problem dispensing the pill, just Plan B or RU-486. Both of these were approved relatively recently. If you've already spent the time and money going to pharmacy school, maybe you've been a pharmacist for years now, you should suddenly have to find a new profession because you won't dispense two drugs?

This is a very few number of pharmacists compared to the total number. They almost all work in large pharmacies where the company has made sure that there will always be another pharmacist available to dispense the drug. The rare case where someone called in sick and someone wanted RU-486 right then gets a lot of media play, but that is always very rare. In my area, most pharmacies are closed on Sundays. Do we need to require they be open on Sunday in case someone needs one of these two drugs?

Why is the focus on these few people being the problem. Why not do as Katie has done and try to publicize the ways that the drugs are available. Since Plan B has such a small window of time, I think it is reasonable that women should check out their area ahead of time to see which doctors and pharmacies are going to be able to get it to them quickly. Is there any sort of website or 800 number that you can call to find providers in your local area?

I think there are more avenues available than stepping on the right of people to have religious freedom, and I think that is a dangerous road to go down. We shouldn't decide that one right is more important than the other one.

Anonymous said...

this is very interesting that in the name of "rights"....someone else is deprived of THEIR this case religious freedom. really the whole abortion issue period is the right of people to have sex anywhere anytime and with whoever and not have to take the responsiblity for it. I think it is just sickening that the so called "pro choice" folks trot out people that are very exceptional amongst the population seeking abortions and use them as examples of why anyone, anywhere, anytime and at any point in thier pregnancy, even up to the day before the due date can get an abortion with no questions asked. very very few of the percentage of women seeking abortions have genuine medical issues or are dealing with rape or incest or are married women who just cannot cope with another baby. most are women who want the freedom to have casual sex without the consequences. they are people for whom their problem could have been totally prevented if the word "no" was in their vocabulary. on a different tack one could argue that in the case of women who have been molested or raped or coerced in some manner by males that the easy availability of abortion in fact makes covering up their crime all the more easier.
as for genuine medical issues, those have and always will be dealt with by doctors despite laws about abortion on demand. the problem of course was that those who could bribe a doctor to lie for them get used to promote abortion for all. see the faulty logic? because rich people can buy their way out of jail time for say, murder or rape or robbery then really, we should do away with penalty for crime because its unfair and the rich can beat the system.
I am not against abortion because babies are so precious or women should have all they can but because since it would be appalling to kill a person after they are outside the mother, so it should be before. I am not against abortion because supposedly it is a health risk. a lot of things are health risks but that does not make them wrong. really all a lot of the arguments do is bolster the idea that we should always act in our best interests. sometimes its not about us. sometimes its about someone else. the problem isnt really abortion or morning after contraception. the problem is about people controlling themselves so these things are not neccessary. as for married women with enough kids or who dont want kids...that is a totally different kettle of fish. if you really really know you never ever want another child then you make very sure you dont have one. married women have nothing todo with the issue of whether a kid who didnt ask to be concieved should have to pay for some unmarried girl to continue to behave irresponsibly.
as for the intrusive questions by doctors, yes you are probably right about the suing part. HOWEVER if you know anyone who has ever had any cosmetic surgery they are certain to have had the same questions asked of them. indeed a lot of plastic surgeons wont touch someone without a big counseling session to make sure of their reasons, expectations etc. elective surgery is always subject to this. I know someone who had a nose job and I can guarantee she got a lot more interrogation than anyone getting a tubal gets. because unfortunately even if you are not one of them, a lot of people DO do things on a whim.

dedanaan said...

To Sarada and the last anonymous...

Oh, please! Welcome to the 21st century! Get with the program, or move to Iran.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the pro-choice position should collapse into an argument about whether the woman who wants the choice is deserving or "good" enough to exercise her right to choose. Who in the heck is in charge of judging that in our government, hmmmm? There should be a right to choose, period. And by the way, there are many many limitations on a woman's right to choose an abortion, and you cannot walk in and get one up any old time. That's been true since Roe v. Wade, which laid out criteria.

Anonymous said...

excuse me but our government decides all the time. its called the legal process. sorry.
whether you want to admit it or not, abortion IS killing a baby. there may be times, such as extreme medical issues where it would probably fall into justifiable homicide or self defense...BUT to have abortion available simply so women can spread their legs whenever and with whomever they want consequence free is just wrong. sorry you think that is up there with the burqa but thats the way it is.
I might add, that as a nice benefit of abortion on demand you have more men refusing to take responsibility. used to be that the fear of getting stuck with a kid to support out of wedlock encouraged many horny men to keep their pants up. now the guy thinks well, she can get an abortion. and if she doesnt, well, the guy feels that since she CHOSE to continue the pregnancy (its all about choice, remember) then its not HIS responsibility to contribute financially. I personally know of several single mothers whose sperm donors have used exactly this rationale. like he had nothing to do with it.
ah, the problems created by out of wedlock sex. but so many are so blind (or so horny) they will not see it. get a vibrator ladies rather than put some poor kid into the position of having adoption issues, no daddy in the picture issues or being murdered before birth. women have walked right into this one and they piss and moan about what has become the consequences of their actions. there are some very good reasons that sex belongs in marriage. we think with abortion and modern medicine we have erased those but new ones have popped up. sex is NOT a need like food or water. no one ever died from lack of sex. and thats really what this is all about. its not about some poor woman having a two headed baby that cant get a medical abortion or some victim of incest that NOW dragged up to make people feel guilty for objecting to abortion on demand. its about a lot of people seeing something fundamentally wrong about sentencing a kid to die so you can continue to fulfil your need to mate like an animal with whatever is available, whether or not it involves a permanent commitment.

Anonymous said...

lest the married childless by choice object: if you are that sure you dont want kids you did the right thing by getting sterilized. I always wonder when I see married women held up as a reason for abortion on demand why if another kid would be so catastrophic why they did not do something to make very very sure that that did not happen?

Anonymous said...

actually isnt it rather selfish to end a childs life OR condemn them to having either adoption or single mom issues simply so you can enjoy sex whenever and wherever and with whomever you please?

Anonymous said...

it would be interesting, in light of Katies breastfeeding/obesity link obsession here to find out how many of these obese kids are pigging out to deal with the pain of one way or another having broken lives as the result of their parents uncommitted lust. now THAT would be an interesting link.

Anonymous said...

pigging out due to their parents uncommitted lust?

anonymous, i read this blog just to read your hilariously absurd commentary.

Anonymous said...

um yeah. ever hear of broken homes? or do you think children whose fathers have dropped out of the picture feel no pain?
and while adoption can be a good thing, most adoptees do have issues to work thru.

spiney said...

>If someone feels that by >cooperating in what they feel is >an immoral practice, why should >we force them to do it?

Because it's their job. Someone further up the food chain (the prescription writer, generally a physician) has already made the determination that the medication is required. It's not the pharmicists job to make that call, or to interfere with the orderly and timely dispensing of the medicine.

Now, if an entire chain (say, CVS) decides across-the-board that they don't want to dispense a particular med, I've got no problem with that. That's the free market in action. If a chain makes that decision, it needs to be well-publicised, if not by the chain itself, then by those affected by the decision.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous does have some valid points (although I wouldn't express them in the same way). I've met teenagers who've had multiple abortions because they are sexually active and refuse to use condoms and aren't responsible enough to bother with the pill. I'm not anti-abortion, and can think of some instances where it is necessary, but I've also seen several instances where it's just used as a band-aid to cover the mistakes of some teenage brat who is unwilling to take responsibility for her actions. At what point does abortion and Plan B stop being a matter of right and start being a matter of a carelessness and reckless abandon? One abortion? Two? What about the girl I know who's not quite 21 and has had four?