[Ichneumon]

Now with a few searches I probably could have come up with some more "on-line" companies.

Are those just *information* sites, or actual *order* sites? And can they be ordered without a prescription or doctor's "okay"?

I think this lady lawyer could have done so too. And perhaps a couple of calls to Planned Parenthood could have confirmed for her which drug to purchase and with FEDEX she could have had the pill pretty quickly;

Did you actually find any sites that offered to FEDEX pills to people without a doctor's approval?

at least within the 72 hours she mentioned in the article.

If it gets there after, say, 71 hours, it's only 1/72 as effective (i.e., 1/72 as likely to catch the egg before it ovulates in the necessary timespan compared to getting it early in the 72-hour window).

Of course I don't know what all her efforts were other than what she wrote about, but I think she didn't do enough. JMO

She's doing it now -- she's writing an editorial to try to help lessen the pointless restrictions on the availability of this contraceptive.

[BigBobber]

Do yourself a favor a Google "morning after pill".

Then tell us all how this smart lawyer was forced to have an abortion because she couldn't get this medication in time.

I'm also curious to know what the reasons are for a husband not to get a vasectomy to protect his wife from pregnancy after they have determined their family is complete.

[Enterprise]

"Are those just *information* sites, or actual *order* sites? And can they be ordered without a prescription or doctor's "okay"?"
"Did you actually find any sites that offered to FEDEX pills to people without a doctor's approval?"

So you're saying you're too lazy to search to get the information for your own self, like the lazy female lawyer?

If it gets there after, say, 71 hours, it's only 1/72 as effective (i.e., 1/72 as likely to catch the egg before it ovulates in the necessary timespan compared to getting it early in the 72-hour window)."

The time constraints were evident. But that issue became moot because: "I figured I'd take my chances and hope for the best." She got the results weeks later.

"She's doing it now -- she's writing an editorial to try to help lessen the pointless restrictions on the availability of this contraceptive."

I understood the point of her politicized, religion bashing editorial. But as with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle" in which a pitch for socialism was disguised as an attack on the meat packing industry, she missed her mark. Instead of effectively educating the readers on why the policies worked against people like her who might need this medication, she only succeeded in publicly making a total ass of herself.

[hocndoc]

I don't believe that it's pointless to require a physician's prescription for drugs. Neither is it pointless to allow medical professionals the right of conscience.

I would have a conference with the internist,the gynecologist and even the midwife (although she or he probably won't have the same "deep pockets" that the docs have) about the risk of medications with insufficient contraceptive protection. Do you suppose that a jury will find in her favor?