To comment on an example of copyright infringement in the readings, I would like to say something about the New York Times situation (when another website made its page look like the New York Times but it was satirical of it). Gillmor seems to believe that these kinds of infringements should not be handled the way that they currently are but I disagree. Perhaps I am biased. Currently I am reporting on a "similar" issue in another class: people make "look-alike" designer handbags. Now, it is true that these are different situations, largely because in th case of the purses, someone is making something look like something else in oreder to decieve and in the other someone is doing it not MERELY to decieve...perhaps they are doing it for another purpose. But, in my opinion, both are stealing. If I were the New York Times, I would be IRATE! If Joe Shmoe can get away with copying my stuff to "satirize" my paper, why can Jane Doe copy me for something else...or copy designer purses? And I don't think this is just a matter of journalistic freedom and "watchdogging." If that is the case, why can't the satire be re-formatted? We have to protect people's property. In this sense, I think copyright is a good thing. However, I also have to look at the teacher who published the entire book about songs without lyrics...yikes. This is where I think copyright gets sticky. The fact that people fear this so much...enough to not publish one lyric in a book practically about lyrics...is scary. I suppose in one sense, the copyright laws are working: They are preventing people from infringing on a creator's rights/property. But, it is also preventing ohters from learning and building upon that person's work...this is where copyright is bad. So, like Gillmor says, and like most things in life...balance is always good.

I think citizens journalists can make a huge impact on the dissemination of news! When I read Grubisich's commentary on the poor content level of citizen journalism publications, it sort of made my blood boil! I think Heaton's rebuttal on the insulting comparison between mainstream journalism and citizen journalism, had a point when it said that this guy was taking mainstream media standards and applying it to something else. These CITIZENS are not trying to be mainstream, big media conglomerates. They are merely bringing hyperlocal news to the table. And as for lacking in substance, maybe many of them do (in his standards) but at the same time, that is the beauty of citizen journalism. There is crap and there is the good stuff...just like in mainstream media. But for some snob to look down his nose at a journalism operation because it isn't "mainstream" is ridiculous. In addition, I think he should take a look at sites like Oh My News...it has great content and isn't that considered citizen journalism? I especially liked Steve Outing's 7th layer of jourmalism...The stand-alone citizen journalism site: unedited version. Now, I know this COULD be (and in Grubisich's mind probably is) kind of the extreme of citizen journalism projects but nonetheless, I find it interesting because it is exactly what it is intended to be: raw, unedited citizen journalism. I think Outing has a point when he says that by sending a citizen journalist's work through editing, they become sort of "mini-jourmailsts." But, I find it interesting that people can have the chance to just "put it out there"...and exercise the first amendment in its purest form. Okay, I understand all the complications of this but, again, I think Outing had a good point about the legal stuff too. If you tell people what the site is and let 'come what may,' at least the site's hiney is out of trouble (from a legal standpoint).

In Lasica's, 'Let Journalists Blog,' he references Brian Toolan, saying Toolan thinks journalists should not be able to blog for a number of different reasons. Which begins the age-old argument about journalists and objectivity. This relates to blogs in that some, like Toolan believe that blogs are like (or in some cases are) political platforms, or other platforms where journalists can express their opinions freely, as opposed to being stifled by the pressures of mainstream media demands. Well, I have a couple of things to say about this. First of all, to complete my assignment, I would say that this idea relates to some of the MSM blogs. I looked at Scott Norvell's Fox News Blog and Dave Berry's blogs. I found both to be quite interesting. However, in these two blogs, you do see some participatory journalism (I suppose) occurring because people are allowed to comment on the author's work. However, in these two examples, the blogs are lighter than you would find of someone who is acting as a journalist for a MSM outlet. They both sort of serve as "news filters," offering readers interesting little story blurbs. However, I think this speaks loudly about the next issue I would like to address. This Toolan guy and everyone else on his side of the fence are nuts. This whole idea of "not having a blog because you are a journalist" is ludicrous! He goes on to talk about objectivity and well, you know the rest of that whole song and dance. My response to that is if anything, blogs are doing journalists a service! Like the Business Journal article suggests, blogs increase transparency for readers, and at this point in journalism, we need all the transparency we can get. Plus, I think blogs let people have a peek into the personality of journalists which will increase the journalists like-a-bility. If we wanted something that was objective and impartial to tell us stories then we need just that...AN OBJECT OR A MACHINE! We are human beings and when we tell stories that stem from our beliefs, interests, biases and backgrounds, we reach out to other human beings!!! THAT'S OUR WHOLE PURPOSE! AND...I think MSM is in some real need for likeability. So in my opinion, take off your poker face, let your guard down a little and be a human journalist. Blogs are just a tool that can help us accomplish this. I would also like to compliment Norvelle and Barry's blogs. I think the way they are blogging is useful in another way. As I was trying to say in our discussion on Wednesday, engaging young people in news is difficult. However, these two people's blogs do a great job of giving interesting little blurbs about things that are going on. I think MSM need to take a look at these blogs to get ideas of how to reach young people adequately. Also, these blogs give us a little insight to their authors which is an added bonus in my book!!!

In Lasica's, 'Let Journalists Blog,' he references Brian Toolan, saying Toolan thinks journalists should not be able to blog for a number of different reasons. Which begins the age-old argument about journalists and objectivity. This relates to blogs in that some, like Toolan believe that blogs are like (or in some cases are) political platforms, or other platforms where journalists can express their opinions freely, as opposed to being stifled by the pressures of mainstream media demands. Well, I have a couple of things to say about this. First of all, to complete my assignment, I would say that this idea relates to some of the MSM blogs. I looked at Scott Norvell's Fox News Blog and Dave Berry's blogs. I found both to be quite interesting. However, in these two blogs, you do see some participatory journalism (I suppose) occurring because people are allowed to comment on the author's work. However, in these two examples, the blogs are lighter than you would find of someone who is acting as a journalist for a MSM outlet. They both sort of serve as "news filters," offering readers interesting little story blurbs. However, I think this speaks loudly about the next issue I would like to address. This Toolan guy and everyone else on his side of the fence are nuts. This whole idea of "not having a blog because you are a journalist" is ludicrous! He goes on to talk about objectivity and well, you know the rest of that whole song and dance. My response to that is if anything, blogs are doing journalists a service! Like the Business Journal article suggests, blogs increase transparency for readers, and at this point in journalism, we need all the transparency we can get. Plus, I think blogs let people have a peek into the personality of journalists which will increase the journalists like-a-bility. If we wanted something that was objective and impartial to tell us stories then we need just that...AN OBJECT OR A MACHINE! We are human beings and when we tell stories that stem from our beliefs, interests, biases and backgrounds, we reach out to other human beings!!! THAT'S OUR WHOLE PURPOSE! AND...I think MSM is in some real need for likeability. So in my opinion, take off your poker face, let your guard down a little and be a human journalist. Blogs are just a tool that can help us accomplish this. I would also like to compliment Norvelle and Barry's blogs. I think the way they are blogging is useful in another way. As I was trying to say in our discussion on Wednesday, engaging young people in news is difficult. However, these two people's blogs do a great job of giving interesting little blurbs about things that are going on. I think MSM need to take a look at these blogs to get ideas of how to reach young people adequately. Also, these blogs give us a little insight to their authors which is an added bonus in my book!!!

One of the hottest topics right now is that of whether or not our school systems should be teaching kids what is known as “Intelligent Design.” According to an October 24, 2005 article written in the Cybercast News Service by Monisha Bansal titled, “‘Intelligent Design Belittles God,’ Says Priest,” “Intelligent Design asserts that the sophisticated characteristics of living things on earth and their evolution are no accident, but instead the design of an intelligent force.” She goes on to say that most Intelligent Design adherents are Protestant Christians and they stop short of identifying the “designer” as a religious figure like God. Thus, what has many people up in arms, is that many people believe that Intelligent Design is just progressive “Creationism” and that presenting this matter in schools is equivalent to teaching religion. I agree. I believe, as T. Jeremy Gunn’s October 18, 2005 Philadelphia Inquirer article titled, “It’s a Belief, and Wrong for Science Courses” states, “School boards should not be in the business of voting on which religious beliefs are true and which religious beliefs should be taught in schools. The consequences are too dangerous, both for freedom of religion and for scientific progress.”
We most definitely should not be teaching this theory in science classes because first of all, scientists disagree on its validity. In Gunns article, he points out that “dozens of America’s leading scientific organizations and scores of Nobel Prize winners denounce Intelligent Design as unscientific. No legitimate scientific organization in the country credits Intelligent Design for being anything other than a distraction from science.” In addition, Bansal’s article quotes Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University saying he dismisses Intelligent Design as something not rooted in science. He says, “It would be tantamount to telling students that it is acceptable for scientists, when faced with phenomena they cannot yet explain, to simply throw up their hands, stop trying to expand the frontiers of human knowledge and write off the unknown to supernatural causes and effects.” He adds that astrology and witchcraft might as well be taught. How can we present students with this theory in science class when scientists can’t even explain it?
Secondly, by presenting this form of progressive creationism in the public classroom, we are clearly blurring the lines of “church and state.” Why should we share the views of “Creationism” and/or “Intelligent Design” and neglect to expand on other views people have? If that is the case, when can we stop presenting differing views on how people have become what we know of them at present? In an article written by Bill Byron in The Desert Sun on October 23, 2005 titled “What Should Our Kids Learn?” Byron quotes a parent of a 16-year-old daughter. She doesn’t believe creationism should be taught in school. She says, “that falls into the realm of what each family should think about and teach on their own. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing in God, I just don’t think it should be taught.”
This leads me to my next argument. If we teach this view in the classroom, which has no scientific validity, we will distract from teaching actual science. Guilbert Hentschke is an education professor and former dean of the school of education at the University of Southern California. He says, “What do you stop teaching in order to teach that? What do you cut back? The loss of other curriculum and arguably the appearance of crossing the line of church and state, that’s where you find yourself crossing the line.” According to Bansal’s article , 32 percent of undergraduate students in the U.S. major in science, compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. She quotes Lawrence Krauss, director of the Office of Science, Public Policy and Biotechnology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Krauss says, “We have to do a better job of teaching biology in the classroom. The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it.”
Supporters of teaching Intelligent Design, however, argue that evolution is “just a theory.” Well, according to an article by Jeffery Dean titled “Readers Fail to Get Facts Before Slamming Theory,” published in the San Antonio Express News on October 16, 2005, “When a concept in science has accumulated so much supporting evidence that it is accepted as fact, it is called a theory. Hence, we have the theory of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory and electromagnetic theory. Nobody picks on these, because they don't conflict with anyone's religious views, but the theory of evolution has as much or more scientific supporting data as any of these theories. Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" is just displaying his ignorance of science as a whole.” Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory because there is not enough scientific evidence to make it qualify as a one. Thus it should not be taught in science class.
Other supporters argue that the theory of evolution is in itself a religion and science denies this “product of faulty reasoning.” Julia Gorin wrote an article on October 24, 2005 titled, “We Need Faith in God and Science; Mysteries Abound; It Takes Much to Believe in Evolution as it Does to Believe in an Intelligent Designer,” in Newsday. In it, she suggests a similar idea: that science and Creationism can go hand in hand. She says, “Could it be that there’s been no contradiction between God and science all along?” Yes, it could. Even the presence of a God, or ‘Intelligent Designer,’ is not proven by sound science. There is vast disagreement about the presence of a higher being. However, according to Dean’s article , if people were to “study some of the scientific papers on evolution and related areas (genetics, embryology, biochemistry, physiology and geology), written by people who do scientific research for a living, they would find there is very little disagreement on the validity of evolution. The only disagreement is in some of the details, but the overall process is taken as a given.” Furthermore, Intelligent Design is not peer-reviewed, which means it (unlike information printed in scientific journals) has not been read before publication by other experts to make sure it has scientifically valid information. Therefore, Intelligent Design shares “ shelf space with books on how to cast spells and compilations of Dilbert cartoons.”
Still, Intelligent Design supporters argue that we need to teach our children “both sides” to the story. In Byron’s article he quotes Debrah Kay Ahlers, a woman running for her school district’s Board of Education. She says, “I believe that our children deserve a well-rounded education, and I am in support of teaching creation in the schoolrooms as well. I believe we should give both sides of the issue and give our children as much information as we can. Unfortunately it’s not part of the (science) curriculum now, but I would like to see it change.” I agree with Ahlers. We should give our children a well-rounded education. But that doesn’t mean we should teach a religious view to them and present it as science. If anything, that is misinforming our children, which does the exact opposite of educating them. Also, if we want to present all of the views to this complex issue to our children, we will be teaching more than just “both sides” because in this matter, there are many sides. If we want to teach these views, put them in their proper place, a religion class. However, don’t teach them to students as science.
As a Christian, I believe in Creation. However, I also believe in the rights of others to have their own opinions, views and personal theories. Our country was founded on the freedom of religion and by teaching one viewpoint of religion as science, we are not allowing others to exercise their freedoms. There is a place for teaching religion. It’s called church. Furthermore, by teaching this in our science classrooms, we are inhibiting the furthering of our children’s education.

I chose to take a look at Kent Bye’s Echo Chamber Project because I thought it was interesting in class. I think Bye is on the right track here with his documentary. In previous posts, I have emphasized the importance of citizen journalism and MSM working side by side. Well, I think that’s what Bye is trying to get at here too when he talks about the “balance of top-down media and bottom up participation.” I definitely think that open-source journalism can play a huge role in MSM production of news stories! I think this sort of journalism is one example of this hand-in-hand relationship and balance. This leads me right into the discussion of the second part of this week’s question: Do you think the author’s approach to movie/film production can aid television in new strategies for investigative journalism? I most certainly think that the way Bye has gone about producing his documentary can aid television in new strategies of this kind. First of all, the way Bye’s is making his documentary open-source is a great example of how open-source journalism can work. I think it will be particularly interesting to see what people do with it and what the MSM does with it. I also think this kind of journalism gives its “audience” (I use that word loosely) an incredible sense of transparency. I mean, what could be more transparent than a piece saying, “this is what I came up with now you take it, go out and gather your own information, if you wish, and change it accordingly. I know that as a news consumer, I would feel incredibly empowered: I was getting a full, collaborative story. This sort of change is directly related to the change in technology, as discussed in class. But, as more and more people become familiar and comfortable with advances in technology, we will move closer to this big “media change” everyone’s buzzing about. Bye’s uses in his documentary a simple camcorder and open-source tools for editing. And clearly, looking at his web-site, his documentary is already having at least some kind of effect.

I would also like to add, that at one point I kept saying to myself, “I love the idea of this whole ‘citizen journalism’ movement, but in the end, there is still ONE editor, or one gatekeeper for that set of information.” Well, with this idea of open-source journalism, it isn’t about just ONE gatekeeper anymore. It’s about many. However, this can lead to problems as well. Will we at some point need some filters? Who will those filters be? Then won’t that just reverse the collaborative work we just did? So, I can’t decide is this idea of “many gatekeepers” is good or not. I suppose like everything else, it requires balance.

Okay, this is probably a HUGE stretch for the question of the week, but I feel that I am obeying the topic because a.) I am choosing a podcast that is of interest to me and b.) it is entertainment, which is my topic for my group project. So, I went through some entertainment podcasts via ipodder. For the most part, what I found was bad. The first one I listened to was about 1.5 minutes long. I am all for short podcasts but really...is that necesary to waste a download on? Anyway, the pocast was about hollywood "current events" if you will. It was much like the Hollywood Skinny on a local radio station here. It had intro and exit music and talked about Hollywood gossip. What I was disappointed in as well was that the podcasts were so sporatic. The last one was from October 4 and the one before that was from September. This is a poor example of citizen journalism because it's not really contunious. Who knows when the next one will be? However, I look forward to the Hollywood Skinny EVERY MORNING but many mornings, I can't listen to it because I am in class or doing something where I am not near a radio. Therefore, this kind of podcast would be great for me if it was available everyday. I could take the Hollywood Skinny with me everywhere!!!
The second example of a podcast I found was HORRIBLE!!! I found this one through ipodder too. It's called "Two Guys One Brain." I read a little description about it and thought I would give it a shot...MISTAKE. I found this under the entertainment folder in ipodder and the gist of the show was this: two guys who work together sat down and just started talking as if they were on a radio show. This SOUNDS like it would be interesting because people usually like this kind of "radio show." (You know, the mornign shows when DJ's just sit around and chat about what's going on.) Well, this one was all about one of the guys' eye infection. It was so boring. It was almost like these two guys HOPED someone would hear their little "show" and decide to give them a radio show of their own one day. What I have to say about that is a.) good luck to those guys and b.) (on a more positive note) this is a great example of Do It Yourself media. Never before were two "random joes" able to do a little show like that and broadcast it so that other people, anybody, could hear it! It is almost amazing that these two guys can actually have their own radio show, sort of.
The thing I have just been chomping at the bit to write about in this blog though is here. I included my review of other sorts of entertainment podcasts just in case this example wasn't sufficient, but, it is the meat and potatoes of what I want to talk about and what has absolutely made my week! In class on Wednesday I noticed this feature of podcasting in iTunes. Even then, I could not wait to get home and play with it and hear it. I could barely finish the class without checking it out: the OC on podcast as well as LOST. This to me is an AMAZING innovation. Whereas before, my favorite piece of new technology was TiVo, now, it is podcasting. Each week, with the hustle and bustle of student life, I find that there are few things that actually make me calm down, stop stressing out and relax. Among these VERY few things are Fox's the O.C., and ABC's Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy. I mean, I don't even get to watch much TV because I am usually so busy, but as hard as it is, I try my very very best each week to schedule my time so that I can block these times out to watch my favorite shows. Sometimes, I know that this is a poor decision but I do it anyway because if I miss just one episode of any of thse shows, I will most definitely be behind and will feel like I am missing out the next week. I know this sounds slightly insane but if you look at the ratings of these shows, you will see, a vast majority of the American population would agree with me on this. Anyway, upon seeing the podcasts of the O.C. and LOST, the first thing that jumped in my mind was: WHAT'S NEXT!?!? I can now subscribe to my favorite shows and listen to them when I am going to school, or waiting in the Dr.'s office or when I am on a trip. I swear nothing has gotten me more excited in a long time. AND, I know it is only a matter of time before other shows such as Deserate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy catch on...or at least I hope. I am a HUGE fan of audio books and now, I am a huge fan of podcasts of my shows. I no longer have to schedule my week around them or waste 2.5 hours watching these shows when, on a SUPER busy week, I can listen to a re-cap of them in about 9 minutes WHENEVER I WANT!!! You might be asking yourself (if you are Sharon Meraz or one of my classmates reading this blog) what does this have to do with do it yourself media or citizen journalism? Well, for one, I think opens the door to other kinds of podcasts. When I find an article in a magazine or a stranger on the bus who is discussing different theories behing LOST and/or Depsperate Housewives, or someone who saw the shows and wants to talk about them, and give their review, I wouldn't care what I was doing, I would listen or read it. People already have podcasts to summarize these shows, next we could have people give their reviews on them....or any entertainment! I know this is already sort of happening but, how great would it be to be able to hear a broadway review that I may never get to see? I mean, people already write articles like these all the time. Now, not only can we get a re-cap of entertainment events, we can get a review too, on our ipods!

Okay, this is probably a HUGE stretch for the question of the week, but I feel that I am obeying the topic because a.) I am chooding a podcast that is of interest to me and b.) it is entertainment, which is my topic for my group project. So, I went through some entertainment podcasts via ipodder. For the most part, what I found was bad. The first one I listened to was about 1.5 minutes long. I am all for short podcasts but really...is that necesary to waste a download on? Anyway, the pocast was about hollywood "current events" if you will. It was much like the Hollywood Skinny on a local radio station here. It had intro and exit music and talked about Hollywood gossip. What I was disappointed in as well was that the podcasts were so sporatic. The last one was from October 4 and the one before that was from September. This is a poor example of ctizen journalism because it's not really contunious. Who knows when the next one will be? However, I look forward to the Hollywood Skinne EVERY MORNING but many mornings, I can't listen to it because I am in class or doing something where I am not near a radio. Therefore, this kind of podcast would be great for me if it was available everyday. I could take the Hollywood Skinny with me everywhere!!!
The second example of a podcast I found was HORRIBLE!!! I found this one through ipodder too. It's called "Two Guys One Brain." I read a little description about it and throught I would give it a shot...MISTAKE. I found this under the entertainment folder in ipodder and the gist of the show was this: two guys who wol together sat down and just started talking as if they were on a radio show. This SOUNDS like it would be interesting because people usually like this kind of "radio show." (You know, the mornign shows when DJ's just sit around and chat about what's going on. Well, this one was all about one of the guys' eye infection. It was so boring. It was almost like these to guys HOPED someone would hear their little "show" and decide to give them a radio show of their own one day. What I have to say about that is a.) good luck to those guys and b.) (on a more positive note) this is a great example of Do It Yourself media. Never before were two "random joes" able to do a little show like that and bradcast it so that other people, anybody, could hear it! It is almost amazing that these two guys can actually have their own radio show, sort of.
The thing I have just been chomping at the bit to write about in this blog though is here. I included my review of other sorts of entertainment podcasts just in case this example wasn't sufficient, but, it is the meat and potatoes of what I want to talk about and what has absolutely made my week! In class on Wednesday I noticed this feature of podcasting in iTunes. Even then, I could not wait to get home and play with it and hear it. I could barely finish the class without checking it out: the OC on podcast as well as LOST. This to me is an AMAZING innovation. Whereas before, my favorite piece of new technology was TiVo, now, it is pocasting. Each week, with the hustle and bustle of student life, I find that there are few things that actually make me calm down, stop stressing out and relax. Among these VERY few things are Fox's the O.C., and ABC's Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy. I mean, I don't even get to watch much TV because I am usually so busy, but as hard as it is, I try my very very best each week to schedule my time so that I can block these times out to watch my favorite show. Sometimes, I know that this is a poor decision but I do it anyway because if I miss just one episode of any of thse shows, I will most definitely e behind and will feel like I am missing out the next week. I know this sounds slightly insane but if you look at the ratings of these shows, you will see, a vast majority of the American population would agree with me on this. Anyway, upon seeing the podcasts of the O.C. and LOST, the first thing that jumped in my mind was: WHAT'S NEXT!?!? I can now subscribe to my favorite shows and listen to them when I am going to school, or waiting in the Dr.'s office or when I am on a trip. I swear nothing has gotten me more excited in a long time. AND, I know it is only a matter of time before other shows such as Deserate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy catch on...or at least I hope. I am a HUGE fan of audio books and now, I am a huge fan of podcasts of my shows. I no longer have to schedule my week around them or waste 2.5 hours watching these shows when, on a SUPER busy week, I can listen to a re-cap of them in about 9 minutes WHENEVER I WANT!!! You might be asking yourself (if you are Sharon Meraz or one of my classmates reading this blog) what does this have to do with do it yourself media or citizen journalism? Well, for one, I think opens the door to other kinds of podcasts. When I find an article in a magazine or a stranger on the bus who is discussing different theories behing LOST and/or Depsperate Housewives, or someone who saw the shows and wants to talk about them, and give their review, I wouldn't care what I was doing, I would listen or read it. People already have podcasts to summarize these shows, next we could have people give their reviews on them....or any entertainment! I know this is already sort of happening but, how great would it be to be able to hear a broadway review that I may never get to see? I mean, people already write articles like these all the time. Now, not only can we get a re-cap of entertainment events, we can get a review too, on our ipods!

According to an editorial written in March of 2004 titled, “How to Reduce Abortions; Why Has It Been So Hard to Make Contraception So Easy?” in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, our country has 3 million unintended pregnancies per year. This is the highest rate in the industrialized world among adults and teens. Half of those unintended pregnancies result in abortion. Making the morning after pill, a form of emergency contraception, over the counter is essential to protect the health of women by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates can find common ground in the desire to reduce the number of abortions. The morning after pill is a step in that direction. The pill, commonly given in the form of "Plan B," gives women a chance to avoid pregnancy after having unprotected sex. It is intended to be used in case of an emergency and is currently available only with a doctor’s prescription. It is a strong form of birth control and is comprised of two progestin pills: the same hormone found in regular birth control pills. It is most effective when taken 24 hours after having sex, says Thea Singer in her March 2004 Boston Herald article titled, “Young Women Split on Making Morning After Pill OTC.” This presents a problem for women who have unprotected sex on a Friday or Saturday night because scheduling an appointment on the weekend is extremely difficult. Also, unprotected sex may occur when a woman does not have access to her regular physician. Currently, in these circumstances, women may feel forced to take a gamble on pregnancy rather than go to an unfamiliar doctor. In addition, many women do not have adequate health insurance and can not afford to go to the doctor and pay for this medication "just in case." Women need another option. They can have one if the Federal Drug Administration decides to make Plan B available over the counter.

Making Plan B available over the counter will reduce the number of abortions performed. Sally Burgess, executive director of the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City feels, “If women have access to emergency contraception, it’s going to reduce the number of abortions. If that’s a worthy goal, this will do it.” The rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions continue to go down. In fact, they have decreased 28 percent in the last 12 years. Many researchers agree that this is not only due to less sex, but also more birth control, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial says. Also, many proponents in Washington, where the morning after pill has been sold directly in pharmacies since 1998, say this access to Plan B has helped reduce the number of abortions performed in the state, Jean Marbella says in her March 2004 Baltimore Sun article titled, “Falling Back on Plan B is Tough in Most States; Contraception: Only Five Allow Five Pharmacists to Dispense Morning-After Pill Without Prescription.” Representative Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, predicts that making the pill more accessible would “potentially cut the number of abortions performed in half,” according to Kevin McDermott’s February 2004 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article titled, “Panel Advances ‘Morning After’ Pill/ Illinois House Proposal Would Allow Purchase of Contraceptive Without a Doctor’s Prescription.”

The increased accessibility of the pill will also reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive-health research group, Massachusetts ranks 33rd in the nation in teen pregnancies, the most common unwanted pregnancy. Each year, 14,170 of these pregnancies occur and almost half result in abortion. Of the 50 percent who have the abortions, almost 85 percent say they have never heard of the morning after pill. If taken correctly, Plan B reduces the risk of pregnancy by 89 percent and is "remarkably safe", says Singer’s Boston Herald article.

Many opponents would like to believe that Plan B is an abortion pill. However, it takes up to 24 hours for an egg to be fertilized and approximately three days for it to make it to the uterus, which would result in pregnancy. Plan B prevents this last step. It does not work if you are already pregnant and has no effect on an already established pregnancy, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial.

Many such as Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project , claim making the pill available over the counter will lead to more teen promiscuity. They argue that by encouraging birth control, we are negating the message of abstinance, says the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial. However, according to Singer’s article in The Boston Globe, “There is no evidence that having the morning after pill available on the drugstore shelf leads teenagers or any other woman down the path of unprotected sex. There is, on the other hand, a lot of evidence that a backup will prevent pregnancy.” Also, if “the message of abstinence is neglected by the message of birth control,” then should condoms, often used as birth control means, be available only by prescription?

They also argue that this "increase in sexual promiscuity" will lead to the spread of venereal diseases among teens. True, the morning after pill does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases. However, neither do regular forms of birth control. Plan B is merely a different form of birth control. Pharmacist Peter Lee believes, “It’s not like it’s some strange new drug. There really isn’t much difference between using this and regular birth control. They work the same way, so what’s the issue? This is not abortion. This is a preventative measure – the pregnancy never takes place,” according to Marbella’s Baltimore Sun article.

Without an easily available option to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, some women feel forced to act of out desperation. According to Les Perreaux’s February 2003 article, “Abandoned and Thriving: Left Naked in the Cold, Mira’s Prospects for Survival Seemed Slim, but Many Foundlings with Cruel Beginnings are Flourishing,” in the National Post , recently, a baby lay naked on the concrete. She shivered from the cold. Her tiny body fought for survival as her temperature fell 10 degrees below normal. For hours she suffered pain that even an adult would find excruciating. Luckily, “Mira” was found and she lived. Many babies aren’t as fortunate. Some are found dead and alone in dumpsters or shoeboxes.

On August 26, 2005, the FDA voted to postpone its decision on the issue of making Plan B available to women over the counter. With the new Supreme Court Judges taking office, this issue is sure to be brought to the table soon. When it does, we can not afford to put the decision off any longer. Nor can we afford to keep emergency contraception under lock and key from women who need it in the event of an emergency (See this article).A newborn baby found dead and abandoned by his mother is an indication of what desperation can drive someone to do. To alleviate an unwanted pregnancy, a woman may abort her child or leave it for dead in an ally. Thus, if we have the means, why don’t we use them to prevent these tragedies? Making the morning after pill readily available to women is the way. Though some may disagree, it is essential to protect the health of women, and children for that matter, by reducing the amount of abortions and unwanted pregnancies.