Vive La Difference
In France, a woman can walk into a pharmacy and buy pilules de lendemain (the morning-after pill) without a prescription -- in other words, with zero hassle. What does this mean? Probably more than a few abortions prevented -- in France. Here in the USA, the F.D.A. is deciding whether to follow suit. On Tuesday, according to a New York Times editorial, there will be a hearing, supposedly to judge whether the drug (essentially, a few birth control pills, intended to be taken within 72 hours after the condom breaks, to prevent pregnancy), is "safe" to use without supervision. In other words, will American women be treated like adults, or like idiot children whose bodies need to be supervised by the state in loco parentis? And is it going to be fundamentalism or science ruling women's medical options?

Given numerous studies attesting to its safety, and the fact that millions of women around the world have been successfully using similar emergency medication for more than 25 years, advocates who have urged the drug's acceptance have a right to feel at least optimistic.

What's absolutely certain is that they have a right to expect the decision to be made on the basis of science. If some of the drug's supporters are uneasy on this count, it is because the Bush administration has, on more than one occasion, attempted to make scientific research agree with its own ideological predilections. This is particularly true when it comes to abortion.

The potential benefits from making emergency contraception more widely and easily available are enormous. Among other things, it would be an effective strategy for reducing the number of abortions in this country. It's ironic that many of the same groups that pressed for passage of the ban on so-called partial birth abortions by describing certain abortion procedures in grisly detail are pushing just as hard to limit the availability of a drug that would make all abortions, including later ones, less common.