You can think what you like -- and clearly you're going to anyway -- but your amateur detective work is flawed.
The weather data you cite was gathered at Reagan National Airport, and is accurate *only* to that specific location. This is about five miles away from the clinic she was presumably at (at 16th and L streets). As most people are aware, the amount of precipitation can vary a great degree between locations just a few miles apart, due to the fluctuating conditions in the storm cell. I've experienced endless cases of this myself. For example, once my wife and I had been hoping for rain, because there had been a long period without rain and our gardens and yard were seriously in need of water. As I was driving around doing errands one day, it finally started raining so hard that I had to have my wipers on their max setting and even then they were barely keeping up. I phoned my wife at home to give her a verbal "high five" -- but she reported that it wasn't raining a drop at the house, even though I was only a few miles away. That whole day, the house only got a very light sprinkle, much to our frustration, while other parts of town reported frequent downpours. And this was not a freak occurrence -- variability in rainfall from place to place over the city is something I have experienced quite often personally, and is a well-known fact of meteorology.
The author could easily have been in a "downpour" (and at 57 degrees, as you note, that would be pretty "bleak") when she arrived at the clinic "shortly before 10am" even if Reagan National Airport had not yet received much rain.
Worse yet, you "forgot" to point out that the 9:43 precipitation reading is unavailable ("N/A" -- which doesn't indicate zero, since other readings for the same day show "0.00" for an actual zero reading) for the period when the author would have been approaching the clinic, but the conditions indicator does say "RAIN" for that period, of unspecified volume. For all you know, it might have been a heavy rain, and your source can't answer the question either way, although you attempt to use it to bolster your presumption.
You also "forgot" to mention that although Reagan Airport received "only" 0.09 inches during the morning *before* 10am, it received a hefty 0.43 inches in the next hour, a very respectable rainfall. There was heavy rain that morning, despite your attempts to minimize the amount of precipitation by carefully choosing your period to cover many hours that weren't relevant (like midnight-9am).
But wait, there's more! And here we get to the most interesting data.
Also note that between the 9:43 reading and the 9:52 reading, 0.08 inches of rain had accumulated. This doesn't sound like much (and you attempt to imply that this is a minor amount), but 0.08 inches in 9 minutes is a rate of 0.53 inches per hour. 0.5 inches per hour is a rate that this site" describes as the sustained rate of a "50-year storm", this site defines "intense rainfall" as anything over 0.5 inches/hour, this site says that 0.5 inches/hour "surpasses the rule of thumb used by local forecasters for guidance in issuing flood statements" for Los Angeles, this site from the NOAA says that "0.4-0.5 IN/HR ARE THE FLASH FLOOD GUIDANCE VALUES", and so on. This page from the National Weather service speaks of a "brief downpour" producing up to a quarter inch of rain. A rainfall rate of 0.53 in/hour is *not* a light drizzle, it's coming down pretty hard.
Also, if the clinic is the one on 16th and L streets, the parade route you describe is only a few blocks away from it, and could easily have interefered with the travel of someone trying to reach it from the southeast.
So rather than "raise a bit of suspicion", your information actually *bolsters* the validity of her story. It *was* raining pretty seriously on the day described at the time described, it *was* cold enough to be a "bleak" rain, there *was* a parade in proximity to the clinic at that time. A story made up out of whole cloth would be extremely unlikely to contain so many interlocking details that match actual events, places, and times.
Postscript: I wrote the above before reading linda_22003's personal account of the heavy rainfall that day in post #147. I rest my case.
Very good, and far more impressive than my mere eyewitness account. Is your address 221B Baker Street? :-D
Thanks for the clarification. I anticipated that fellow FR readers might be closer to the geographic area I cited, and in a followup reply to linda_22003's post I stated I welcomed the clarification.
Weather does have a tendency to be fickle in the area. That's why I posted the links to the weather info I was reading.
"The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses."
There are competing studies and competing conclusions for sure but there is not a single study anywhere that can conclusively state that Plan B can not effect the endometrium and prevent implantation.
So, when you claim that Plan B is NOT an abortofacient that claim is wrong. It certainly may be and every prospective patient should know just that.