-

The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.

-

archive

Plan B

Letter to the Editor | Monday, November 6, 2006

Since the publication of my Letter to the Editor (“Women, students deserve apology,” Nov. 2), I have received several emails in the spirit of the Andrew Rosato Letter to the Editor (“Plan B destroys embryo in some cases,” Nov. 3), challenging my assertions that Plan B only prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, and no evidence has been found that it interferes with implantation.In light of these letters, I feel I owe my readers a slight apology, for not including citations to support these assertions; since I had no trouble finding supporting evidence, I assumed that the citations would simply be a waste of space. That assumption was incorrect, and I am sorry for making it. Please allow me to correct my mistake now. In a brief written in 2005, the Population Council cites a peer-reviewed article to support the claim that “levonorgestrel [the drug used in Plan B] did not interfere with any postfertilization process required for embryo implantation.” (As of this writing, that brief can be viewed online here: http://tinyurl.com/rkv48.)This year, in a summary of research on hormonal contraceptives and the copper IUD, Family Health International wrote that “There is no data available to support prevention of implantation as a contraceptive action of DMPA or any of the other currently available hormonal contraceptives, including pills and implants.” (As of this writing, this source can be viewed online here: http://tinyurl.com/yyfc3g.)Regarding Barr Pharmaceuticals’ own Web site, as quoted in Rosato’s letter, I would point out that they use the qualifier “may,” do not provide citations, and use nontechnical, informal language. This makes it difficult, at best, to accurately interpret and evaluate the quoted claims. I thank you for the opportunity to correct my previous mistake.

Dan Hicksgrad studentoff campusNov. 3