[hocndoc]

I don't post from my blog often, but too many people are criticizing Plan B for the wrong reasons. I've tried to be as thorough as I can be. Let me know if you find any errors.

[goldstategop]

It doesn't prevent conception if not taken at the right time of a woman's reproductive cycle. And it can fool women into believing they don't have to use additional protection when having sex.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

[hocndoc]

There's a link to a public posting of that Durand article from Contraception and several pro-life blogs with even more information.

http://bvs.insp.mx/temas/pildora/LarreaECinContraception2001v64p227.pdf

[dsc]

"I am convinced that Plan B does not block implantation."

And yet...

"The reason I am still wary is the evidence that the "luteal" phase of the cycle - the time from ovulation to the time the woman starts shedding her uterine lining - is shortened in some women. If the lining is shed early, I can't be sure that there could not be a loss of an embryo which is beginning to implant."

Distinction without a difference alert.

[Peach]

Good job, hocndoc. Thanks for posting this.

[Yaelle]

You seem to be right. Plan B is really Plan B and C, or else Plan Nausea for Nothing.

Plan B means that if you take it before ovulation, in the follicular phase, the nasty surge of hormones will prevent or greatly delay ovulation. Plan C is if the woman is within a few days on either side of ovulation (the sperm can take days to find the egg); obviously the shot of too many wrong hormones SHOULD make the uterus inhospitable for any developing embryo. (You may use the abortifacient word here.)

And if the woman consuming the "postprandial pills" has no clue as to her cycle, and was actually several days or more past ovulation, she took them for nothing.