Abortion vocabulary

Quick. What does it mean if someone is pro-life?

Follow-up question: What does it mean to be pro-choice?

Answer: both questions are a load of crap, because pro-life and pro-choice are equally meaningless terms, merely sound bites that do little to address the actual debate.

One, of course, suggests you're anti-abortion, while the other suggests the opposite. But to call a person either is to misunderstand the issue, especially when so many pro-lifers today are pro-abortion, and pro-choicers are anti-abortion.

President Bush and Gov. Pataki, for example, are pro-abortion. Both are embroiled in controversy over Plan B, better known as the morning-after pill, and whether to make it available over-the-counter. Bush is as pro-life as they come, and Pataki is pro-choice, yet both have killed legislation favoring Plan B. Which means, in the end, by opposing contraceptives that prevent abortions, both are actually supporting more abortions.

But to average Americans, and in the media, if you support Plan B you're pro-choice, and if don't, you're pro-life. Few words in this debate match people's actions.

But first, the facts: Plan B is not an abortion pill, and it works like birth control with a higher dosage of the same chemicals. In 1999, the FDA approved the drug as prescription-only, but in 2003 the company that created Plan B asked that its sale be allowed over-the-counter.

That was fine with the FDA, and a board of scientists unanimously approved the change. But in a rare move, the FDA's Commissioner Lester Crawford - a Bush appointee - shot down his own agency's experts. Saying Plan B might not be safe, Crawford has delayed a ruling twice. And in protest that the decision is no longer based on scientific or clinical evidence, the FDA director for the Office of Women's Health, Susan Wood, recently resigned.

Opponents of Plan B say the higher hormone dosage could be harmful to adolescents. That's what Gov. Pataki said when he decided to veto a bill that would have changed Plan B's status New York. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also vetoed similar legislation, which has been passed in seven states and failed in four.

But none of these "pro-lifers" have a shred of scientific evidence behind them. Several medical groups, including professionals at the FDA, say Plan B is safe and effective. Crawford's conclusion is based strictly on personal opinion and belief.

Another touchy factor stalling the approval of Plan B, both nationally and in New York, is the sale of it to minors under 16. Again, science is thrown out in lieu of personal feelings, since there is no medical evidence that the dosages in Plan B act any differently if you're 16 or 26. And in New York, more than 97 percent of women who have abortions are 16 or older, so how is Pataki exactly being "pro-life" here?

Instead of basing Plan B's approval on personal beliefs, the facts that should count are these: birth control's failure rate is only three percent, Plan B reduces the risk of pregnancy by 75 to 80 percent, and according to some, a larger market for the morning-after pill would reduce the number of abortions by 800,000 annually. That's a statistic all pro-lifers should embrace.

Which is better - to wait until there is an unwanted pregnancy or to prevent one altogether? Supporters of Plan B are labeled "anti-life," but that's hardly the case when they are the ones working to avoid unwanted pregnancies, rather than deal with them after the fact.

To frame the controversy about abortion and Plan B around the two emotional terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is to turn the dialogue into a diatribe of personal opinion and faith.

Plan B's opponents do have a one valid argument. In 2002, a study in Sweden found a higher rate of STDs in teens who had access to emergency contraception.

That wouldn't be a problem with proper sex education, but just like the FDA, our sex ed. programs are increasingly based on opinions and personal beliefs rather than medical facts. President Bush is pumping millions of tax dollars into abstinence-only programs while omitting sex ed. programs that teach about contraception. Should abstinence be taught? Absolutely. But by making it the only option available in the classroom, Bush is doing all Americans a great disservice.

The result of a censored sex ed. program should come as no surprise. According to The New York Times, girls in America are four times more likely to become pregnant than in Germany, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion.

Bush and Pataki say the issue isn't abortion here, but over-the-counter safety. And you believe that, then I'd also like to sell you some Weapons of Mass Destruction.