deny emergency contraception to rape victims ...

[Eos of the Eons]

I didn't know this went on in NY

Do you think churches should decide what kind of medical care you receive? Well, neither do we. That's why our public policy department went after a loophole that allowed religious hospitals in New York to deny emergency contraception to rape victims ... and we won. IHS is the only humanist group in the U.S. that employs a registered lobbyist to focus on humanist issues. We are in the midst of coordinating our 2004 legislative strategy with other progressive groups. In the New Year, we will meet with state legislators to address such vital issues as clerical sex abuse, faith-healing exemptions for child endangerment, and making emergency contraception more available to women.

Institute for Humanist Studies
http://humaniststudies.org

What else like this goes on? Denying help for rape victims? Based on what religious belief? That any type of 'abortion' is not allowed I'm assuming. Ugh.

Where is it human law vs religious laws sometimes. Where is ethics and where is religion?

I'm not religious, but I could never have an abortion, but I also wouldn't dissallow for someone else just because it's not for me. Especially in that case. If it were rape, even I would consider emergency contraception like the morning after pill.

[Boo]

Unfortunately this goes on everywhere. It is of particular issue to women whose insurance provider is affiliated with a hospital that is owned by a Catholic order. They may be denied any type of birth control.

Sadly ethics and religion often have little to do with each other.



Boo

[Eos of the Eons]

Insurance companies too? Argh. Okay, I'm really in the dark as to how sad this all can really be. I had no idea.

[geni]

To be fair you are asking these people to do something that they view as aiding and abetting murder. What the solution is (apart from getting the goverment to provide the pill) I have no idea.

[Eos of the Eons]

No, the solution is making them understand that not everyone shares their beliefs, and they shouldn't push their beliefs on everyone else. It's just like believing homeopathy is better for you because it is 'non'- toxic. If they don't want abortion for themselves, then that is fine. Don't MAKE everyone else follow their belief, their perception of a situation.


Thing is, it's not just that issue we're talking about here. What if Jehova was the main religion, and you were denied a blood transfusion that you needed.

The issue is pushing your beliefs, and then denying everyone said procedures because of it.

That is so wrong on many levels.

[geni]

Churches should not be having to make this kind of descion in the first place. In the 21st centural medical care should be indepdant of religion. Until that is the case you are going to get these problems.

It is not that the church doesn't accept that other people think that taking the morning after pill is wrong. It just that under their moral system giving someone the morning after pill is wrong. Therefore they should not be put in a situation where they have to do this.

In the UK it is legal to shoot a welshman inside the walls of shrewbery(sp) after dark with a long bow. Some people may think this is moraly right Don't expect me to give them the bow.

[Yahweh]

How exactly does a church justify telling a rape victim "You will not be given any contraceptions, you have no choice but to become a parent against your will"...

[rachaella]

I don't have an issue with religious hospitals offering some services and not offering others. I disagree with this, but I think it should be up to the institution. However, the problems arise when hospitals begin to merge. For instance, in my city we have at least 10 hospitals that I can think of but only 3 "groups" of hospitals, Strong Health, Via Healtha, and Lifetime Health. In some areas where this goes on, when a catholic or other religious hospital merges with one or more hospitals in the region all of the hospitals follow the same policies as the religious one. This creates areas where people have to go very far to get services offered by non-religious hospitals. This I think is wrong and definitely needs to be dealt with. On another note, emergency contraception is not abortion. Women who are raped need to be allowed access to these services and I believe in every area there needs to be a hospital that is willing to provide.

[bug_girl]

You guys don't even want to KNOW what the military rules on this are :(
Funding for planned parenthood outside the USA has been gutted as well.
and that's just contraception!

Some folks are against the pill as well, since many forms work by halting implantation of a fertilized egg. so, that means that if life begins at fertilization, the pill is a kind of abortion.

An additional issue is that many medical schools are not teaching anything about the topic of abortion, or having opt out classes as "alternatives."

i think that as a part of your training, you should learn the procedure. you don't have to do it, but you need to know about it.

and since i'm already ranting, just so everyone knows: if you take antibiotics, the pill doesn't work. i had at least one or two undergrads have this happen each year at my school. i bet there were lots more that i didn't hear about.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by bug_girl

And since i'm already ranting, just so everyone knows: if you take antibiotics, the pill doesn't work. i had at least one or two undergrads have this happen each year at my school. i bet there were lots more that i didn't hear about.

Good point. Its not necessarily every antibiotic, but just for extra precautions a good rule of thumb is to use a back-up method whenever you're on antibiotics.

I think it is an interesting point as to when life begins. If you argue that life begins with the fertilization of an ovum, or rather, that a fertlized ovum is a human being with personhood, than yes, one method of preventing conception that birth control pills (as a secondary method) and emergency contraception use is to prevent implantation and this would be considered abortion. However, I do not believe that a fertilized ovum has personhood. I'm not entirely sure when personhood should be given to a developing fetus but in general I'd say at viability. If personhood begins at fertilization, there are a lot more people dying than we're aware of.

[bug_girl]

just so we're clear, i'm repeating what my fundie friends tell me about why they oppose use of the pill, not articulating that position :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by bug_girl
just so we're clear, i'm repeating what my fundie friends tell me about why they oppose use of the pill, not articulating that position :)
Something about the "the pill is inaffective, so why even bother using it" fundie position always puts a thought-bubble with the words "???" over my head...

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by bug_girl
You guys don't even want to KNOW what the military rules on this are :(

and since i'm already ranting, just so everyone knows: if you take antibiotics, the pill doesn't work. i had at least one or two undergrads have this happen each year at my school. i bet there were lots more that i didn't hear about.


Off topic, but yeah, that's how I had my second kid. my third was after I had a tubal. Any more, and I AM having an abortion dammit!

[Suezoled]

yes, some health insurance contracts won't support abortion unless the person is a victim of rape or incest. Some won't pay for it at all. And these are the same contracts that support things like invitro fertilization. Unreasonable bias, if you ask me.

[Ove]

The catolic church is not against the pill as such they are against CONTRACEPTION. they believe that people should not decide wether they want children or not it must be left to god.
What if Jehova was the main religion
Errmm, Jehova is the name of god, i think you are referring to the sect called "Jehova's Witnesses".
It is not that the church doesn't accept that other people think that taking the morning after pill is wrong. It just that under their moral system giving someone the morning after pill is wrong. Therefore they should not be put in a situation where they have to do this.
Unfortunately they are putting themselves in that situation, they don't HAVE to buy hospitals but they do, and the first thing they then do is to close the sex-advice clinic, sorry but i just can't se the catolic church as a organisation that should be pitied because they are "put in a situation", they have put themselves in that situation fully knowing what they was going to expect and they are doing it deliberately to stop all that unholy contraception-sex advice-abortion kinda stuff that is going on.

The Pope is the biggest mass murder in the world.:mad:

[diddidit]

faith-healing exemptions for child endangerment

Egads.

did

[geni]

Originally posted by Ove

Unfortunately they are putting themselves in that situation, they don't HAVE to buy hospitals but they do, and the first thing they then do is to close the sex-advice clinic, sorry but i just can't se the catolic church as a organisation that should be pitied because they are "put in a situation", they have put themselves in that situation fully knowing what they was going to expect and they are doing it deliberately to stop all that unholy contraception-sex advice-abortion kinda stuff that is going on.


So what happened to the free market? the church run hospitials wont do this so where are all the people setting up to meet the demand? The church has as much right to run hospitials as anybody. They should also be alowed to run them the way they want. People can of course decide not to use them.

[Ove]

The church has as much right to run hospitials as anybody.
Yes if they can keep their blasted religion out of the wards and clinic's, unfortunately they can't.
They should also be alowed to run them the way they want.
A doctor should NEVER be allowed to choose how he is to treat the patient out of any other motives than what is good for the patient. When you mix up religion with medical treatment you are inviting trouble.
People can of course decide not to use them.
Yes that is the true conservative american way of thinking, unfortunately a lot of people simply don't have the luxory of that choice. But i admit i am biased, i come from a country where ALL health care are payed by the public and the very notion of a doctor refusing to give out a "morning after pill" is so strange to us over here that we can only shake our heads in disbelief. Over here such a doctor would be out looking for a new job the day after.

[geni]

Originally posted by Ove

Yes if they can keep their blasted religion out of the wards and clinic's, unfortunately they can't.
Vatican city has it's own hospital do you object to this?

A doctor should NEVER be allowed to choose how he is to treat the patient out of any other motives than what is good for the patient. When you mix up religion with medical treatment you are inviting trouble.

Since in this case the doctor is not making a full psycoligical assement. The doctor cannot know what is the correct course of action.
Yes that is the true conservative american way of thinking, unfortunately a lot of people simply don't have the luxory of that choice. But i admit i am biased, i come from a country where ALL health care are payed by the public and the very notion of a doctor refusing to give out a "morning after pill" is so strange to us over here that we can only shake our heads in disbelief. Over here such a doctor would be out looking for a new job the day after.
I'm having the same problem. If the church set up a private hospital in the UK than I would not expect it to provivde the morning after pill. If the US decides not to have an national system of health care why should that change the basic rights of people to do what they like with things they own?

[rachaella]

The only problem with this "free market" theory is that hospitals are different than your average business. First of all, in many areas in the country, as mentioned above, hospitals are merging and in some areas the only hospitals within any sort of semi-reasonable distance are catholic ones or ones affiliated with catholic hospitals. Secondly, EC is only effective up to 72 hrs at the max, the sooner after the sexual contact, the better. Therefore, unlike some reproductive services (like abortions, for example) timeliness is really critical. Would you feel it ethical if a religion decided that heart surgery or antibiotics were unethical and ran an entire conglomerate of hospitals in an area and local residents, particularly the poorer ones, who are far less able to travel abroad, were forced to go to these hospitals? Oh but of course, the people who run this hospital should get to decide what treatment to offer and what not to offer! Damn the people who need heart surgery. Damn the women who have health problems that would make pregnancy a risky and even life-threatening ordeal.

[Ove]

Vatican city has it's own hospital do you object to this?

No because it is located in the vatican.;)

Since in this case the doctor is not making a full psycoligical assement. The doctor cannot know what is the correct course of action.

Then he should not be a doctor (in an emergency room).

If the church set up a private hospital in the UK than I would not expect it to provivde the morning after pill.

Agreed, there are some private hospitals in Denmark too BUT they don't have a ER so a rape victim would not be brought there.

But rachaella formulated my thoughts nicely. ;)

[epepke]

This is nowhere near clear enough.

Do they deny emergency contraception rape victims and not to non-rape-victims (or victims of non-rape, or non-victims of non-rape, or hell, you get the idea).

Or do they deny emergency contraception to everybody, but the reporting agency only mentions "rape victims," because if you say "rape victims" over and over again, it causes people's brains to short-circuit and makes them stupid?

I think there's a real danger in making saying that one is a rape victim a criterion for getting emergency contraception.

[Ove]

Or do they deny emergency contraception to everybody


Why would anyone else than rape victims need emergency contraception?
I think there's a real danger in making saying that one is a rape victim a criterion for getting emergency contraception.

We are talking about emergencycontraception, contraception can be bought anywhere right?

The thread is about "the day after pill" that i would guess you could get most doctors to prescribe so that you can have some lying at home. This pill should also be readily available to rape victims (who had no opportunity to use other means) but according to the story some catolic hospitals refuse to give those pills. They should then IMHO also refrain from running emergency rooms because in such you must give the best treatment.

or victims of non-rape

Have you been drinking??? :confused:

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Ove

Why would anyone else than rape victims need emergency contraception?


Others may need emergency contraception, and I don't think they should be denied it, but the ones most likely to be treated at an emergency room would be rape victims, seeing that rape victims may come in for treatment of a variety of injuries, getting tested for STD's and taking some medications to help prevent the development of one or more STD's and to have a rape kit done which is extremely important in the event that the rape victim wishes to press charges. Therefore, it would seem logical to have Emergency Contraceptives (not only the "morning after pill" but insertion of a copper IUD is the most effective method, though IUD's aren't yet as popular in the US as they are elsewhere around the globe) for women who not to get pregnant and women for whom it is medically prudent.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by epepke
This is nowhere near clear enough.

Do they deny emergency contraception rape victims and not to non-rape-victims (or victims of non-rape, or non-victims of non-rape, or hell, you get the idea).

Or do they deny emergency contraception to everybody, but the reporting agency only mentions "rape victims," because if you say "rape victims" over and over again, it causes people's brains to short-circuit and makes them stupid?

I think there's a real danger in making saying that one is a rape victim a criterion for getting emergency contraception.

And to address your question, catholic hospitals with such policies (I don't have the percentage of all hospitals or even the percentage of catholic hospitals on hand at the moment) do not give out any contraceptives of any sort. I find this offensive enough, but to force beliefs upon women who have already been severely violated to me is positively barbaric.

[Puppycow]

Originally posted by rachaella


And to address your question, catholic hospitals with such policies (I don't have the percentage of all hospitals or even the percentage of catholic hospitals on hand at the moment) do not give out any contraceptives of any sort. I find this offensive enough, but to force beliefs upon women who have already been severely violated to me is positively barbaric.

Ok, now I don't agree with the Catholic position on contraception, but I don't see how simply not carrying contraceptives in the hospital amounts to forcing one's beliefs on others. However, forcing them to carry contraceptives would be forcing your beliefs upon them.

[reprise]

How usual would it be in the US for the only emergency room available to someone to be located in a church run hospital (it would be extremely unlikely here)? And how usual would it be for police to take rape victims to church run hospitals? I can really only see this policy being a problem where the victim has injuries of a nature that will not allow her to seek alternative medical care within the 72 hours window during which the post-coital pill is normally administered, but I'm not familiar with how easy or difficult the post-coital pill is to obtain in the US, so there might be something I'm not taking into consideration here.

[Eos of the Eons]

This thread was originally meant to be more about the whole picture of religious folks preventing some sort of medical attention or allowing themselves to thwart the law.

we will meet with state legislators to address such vital issues as clerical sex abuse, faith-healing exemptions for child endangerment, and making emergency contraception more available to women.

Most outrageous are all the deaths caused by alternative medicine that go unpunished because of their rights to practice their faith.

We've mostly all heard this story
http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=940654&nav=1ugFBKEb?FACTNet

http://www.factnet.org/headlines/children.html?FACTNet


Now we have parents absolutely denouncing 'mainstream medicine' - what are the more religious based medical facilities going to deny next, or more likely to use as an alternative?


"A new threat to the health care of Americans is about to emerge from an unlikely source: a White House Commission which its executive director calls “Washington’s best-kept secret.” The White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy (WHCCAMP), composed overwhelmingly of practitioners, advocates, and entrepeneurs in complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM), was appointed by President Clinton before he left office.

The group has now stunned the Bush administration with a controversial report that misrepresents the nature and benefits of off-beat medical care, recommends major intrusions of anti-scientific beliefs and mystical practices into the American health-care system, and proposes an effective dismantling of public health and consumer protection policies that have served the nation well for almost a century...CAM is an “anything-goes” approach to medical care, with no definable standards for determining either safety or efficacy. CAM practices include such things as homeopathy, acupuncture, Therapeutic Touch, chelation therapy, chiropractic, and healing magnets.

Nearly all CAM practitioners dispute or deny science-based health care. They often urge their clients to resist important public-health interventions such as vaccinations, fluoridation, and dental amalgams. Many ignore modern biochemistry and promote beliefs in the existence of “life forces” and “energy fields” as the source and treatment of disease. A number invoke the “placebo effect” to promote belief in a mystical “mind-body” connection. Still others resurrect ancient supersititions and faith-healing rituals in what amounts to a medicalization of their religions or spiritual beliefs.

A great number push old-fashioned snake-oil tonics that have been repackaged in the form of herbal remedies (so-called “phytomedicine”) and dietary supplements...Changing the approach of medicine from evidence-based to belief-ridden is a direct threat to the health of all Americans.

This is not a mere “integration” of a few relatively harmless ideas or approaches. It is an attempt to relax the standards by which medical progress is gauged... WHCCAMP’s chairman... James Gordon is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist with abiding interests in promoting physically violent psychotherapies, rebirthing, psychotherapy for alien abductees, and “orgone” energy. Gordon... became a follower of the late authoritarian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. (In the 1980’s, Rajneesh’s followers were responsible for the first act of bio-terrorism on US soil, when they poisoned 700 people with salmonella in Antelope, Oregon, to influence the outcome of a local election.) Gordon has written a book about his involvement with the Bhagwan, The Golden Guru,but denies any personal knowledge of the Oregon incident.">

http://www.no-whccamp.org/
If everyone supports this type of medical care, then what is going to happen to legitimate medical care. What about medical research? There will be no money.

The stuff of nightmares, and hopefully that is all that this threat will ever be. Still food for thought though.

[Ove]

How usual would it be in the US for the only emergency room available to someone to be located in a church run hospital (it would be extremely unlikely here)?

Unfortunately i think it is so some places. I saw a "60" minutes about this where they showed large hospitals being taken over by the church one by one. A lot of those hospitals was placed in poor communities and as such also did a large job telling about contraception, VD's etc. Off course such "filth" was shut down at once after the church took over.:mad:

This thread was originally meant to be more about the whole picture of religious folks preventing some sort of medical attention or allowing themselves to thwart the law.

Then let's get back.;)

I agree 100% with you.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Ove


Unfortunately i think it is so some places. I saw a "60" minutes about this where they showed large hospitals being taken over by the church one by one. A lot of those hospitals was placed in poor communities and as such also did a large job telling about contraception, VD's etc. Off course such "filth" was shut down at once after the church took over.:mad:


Exactly, hospital mergers for financial reasons have forced a lot of hospitals to merge with catholic ones leaving entire areas with no alternative than to drive 50 miles (difficult to do if one is too poor to have a car) or go to a catholic hospital. I don't think it would be rare enough for a raped woman to be taken to a catholic hospital.

But, I digress, back to the topic at hand!

I am really glad that a lot of states have passed legislature allowing parents who let their children die of preventable illnesses because of religious beliefs to be prosecuted. These children are powerless to make their own medical decisions, and as such I don't think its unreasonable that parents should have a responsibility to get them basic health care until the child comes of age when they are capable of making this decision on their own.

[patoco12]

I'm assuming this was a Catholic or Christian hospital, but that really doesn't matter.

The religious objection to birth control (including abortion) isn't REALLY about life and death. It is about trying to propogate belief through breeding.

If a mother comes to a Catholic hospital needing care, and she continues to do so with the new child, then that child has a great chance of also becoming Catholic.

Another instance of established religion causing trouble for us all by trying to take over the world.

[geni]

Originally posted by rachaella


Exactly, hospital mergers for financial reasons have forced a lot of hospitals to merge with catholic ones leaving entire areas with no alternative than to drive 50 miles (difficult to do if one is too poor to have a car) or go to a catholic hospital. I don't think it would be rare enough for a raped woman to be taken to a catholic hospital.


It's called capitalism. If like me you don't like you health care being run like this then you have to go for a non-capitalist system. If you don't want your health care to be state run you are going to have to accept this problem.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ove
Why would anyone else than rape victims need emergency contraception?

People are stupid. The get drunk or stoned and do stupid things. Or the condom breaks. Or the guy pulls off his condom when the woman can't see it. Lots of possibilities.

[epepke]

Originally posted by rachaella
And to address your question, catholic hospitals with such policies (I don't have the percentage of all hospitals or even the percentage of catholic hospitals on hand at the moment) do not give out any contraceptives of any sort. I find this offensive enough, but to force beliefs upon women who have already been severely violated to me is positively barbaric.

OK, so it's a general policy of the hospital. My view is that no hospital that denies any procedures for non-medical reasons should be licenced. Period.

People bring up the rape trump card all the time. It's a good one, because it causes everyobdy's brain to inflame and go ballistic. And it's the darling of the religious-right set who want to get rid of all abortion and, according to Jerry Fallwell, contraception too, except in cases of rape or incest.

But in a world where only rape victims could get emergency contraception, it would be de facto like this: "No, you can't get emergency contraception. You have to carry the embryo to term. Unless, of course, you tell us you were raped. Just give us a name. Come on. You can think of someone."

Women aren't stupid. And they aren't etherial angelic creatures, either: they think about self-interest just like men do.

Think very hard before you tell me you want a system that works that works like this.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by epepke

Think very hard before you tell me you want a system that works that works like this.

No, of course I don't. I want Emergency Contraceptives to be available for anyone who wants them.

[Ove]

But in a world where only rape victims could get emergency contraception, it would be de facto like this: "No, you can't get emergency contraception. You have to carry the embryo to term. Unless, of course, you tell us you were raped. Just give us a name. Come on. You can think of someone."

You know? That's plain silly. All medical staff is bound to observe professional secrecy and even if a stupid girl told them she was raped they was not allowed to use that information (over here at least but perhaps that is not the case in USA??).

But most people can afford to BUY emergency contraception and you can do this (again over here at least). You need a prescription off course, but that is only a phone call to a doctor away.I am really glad that a lot of states have passed legislature allowing parents who let their children die of preventable illnesses because of religious beliefs to be prosecuted. These children are powerless to make their own medical decisions, and as such I don't think its unreasonable that parents should have a responsibility to get them basic health care until the child comes of age when they are capable of making this decision on their own.

This has caused a lot of debate over here too. We know f.inst. that Jehova's Witnesses has people standing by to offer "moral support" if one of their members should need hospital treatment. Those vultures will then sit by their dear brother and make sure he doesn't make the terrible sin of accepting a blood transfusion.:mad:

Fortunately we have legislation that means that we can treat juveniles against the will of their parents but it is allways difficult and a lot of doctors hesitate, understandably perhaps, because you know unfortunately that the child will suffer afterwards.

I have two children and how ANY parent can prevent their children form recieving life saving treatment is beyond my understanding. I feel an urge to do something drastic to such parents and to those insane Africans that perform female genital mutilation. Danish scool staff are permitted to order girls to medical examination if they have any suspicion that the girl has been subjected to this horrible treatment and they do.

Just recently an Etheopian couple sewed a scool for forcing their daughter to undergo a medical examination and lost.

The worst case i remember still is some years ago. A couple "kidnapped" their daughter from the cancer ward where she was undergoing treatment for leukemia. They believed in vegetarian food and was diciples of a Quack named Julie Vøldan. She had convinced the parents that a pure vegetarian diet combined with some herbs could cure their daughter. Off course the authorities tried to get the child back in hospital, leukemia is one of the cancer forms that CAN be cured and the success rate is very high at youngsters. But they failed. Back then the law said that parents COULD take those decisions.

The end?? Well just as sad as it could be. The child died. I hope the parents blame themselves the rest of their miserable life but i am afraid they don't.

The one silver lining to this story is a rumour that i alas can't confirm. The rumour is that Julie Vøldan herself has died from cancer. It would be an appropriate Nemesis.:p

[Eos of the Eons]

That would be ironic, I will look it up, but won't hold my breath.

That's just it...Do you think the Jehovas would ever put up a hospital that Jehovas can go to and not get blood transfusions?

Just think...if you actually had to go, and died because you couldn't get transferrred to another hospital fast enough that does give blood transfusions?

I'm sure there are minor examples of this going on in the religious hospitals...willing to be anyway...

Anyone have some stories besides that well known contraception one?

There are homeopath centers where you can lay in bed sick and get treated and die, but you really have to want to go there to get there...no ambulance service ya know.

This is a "what if scenario", but the way things are going...I'm rather thinking it could be possible to not have a life saving procedure available because of the hospital owner's 'beliefs'.

[Ove]

Just think...if you actually had to go, and died because you couldn't get transferrred to another hospital fast enough that does give blood transfusions?

Yep that's just it. As long as it is a private clinic where f.inst. Jehova's witnessess can go and be operated without blood transfusions i have got absolutely no qualms, they can do (and die) just the way they want to.;)

The trouble comes when the religious hospital starts to run a Emergency Room, THAT IMHO should be outlawed, an ER must be prepared for all kinds of emergencies, also to make an express abortion if the mothers life is in danger, something you'll NEVER see done on a catolic hospital.

This is a "what if scenario", but the way things are going...I'm rather thinking it could be possible to not have a life saving procedure available because of the hospital owner's 'beliefs'.

I'm afraid it is allready happening.:(

[epepke]

Originally posted by rachaella


No, of course I don't. I want Emergency Contraceptives to be available for anyone who wants them.

As do I. But playing the rape card too often has, I think, a significant chance of leading to a "compromise" that is just as I described.

[rachaella]

I don't know if everyone here is aware but the FDA recently approved EC for non-prescription sale, so soon this problem will be much less severe as women will be able to buy EC OTC.