While I absolutely support Mr. Saletan's right to post what he believes ("Drugstore Choirboy), his blog contains many errors in fact. This is one of the reasons any blog should be taken with more than a grain of salt--there is no fact-checking in the blogosphere.

Error: Mr Saletan implies that contraceptives can be lethal to a fetus. This is false. Plan B and "regular" contraceptives are not lethal to a fetus. They prevent fertilization, so in fact there is no fetus.

Fact: Many pharmacists who should know better, don't. They believe that Plan B and other emergency contraceptives are abortificants. They are not.

Error: Mr Salatin states that "some have shifted their energy from attacking abortion clinics to setting up 'alternative' pregnancy centers." He does not recognize that those 'alternative' pregnancy centers actually are legally allowed to lie and mislead women about their options. For example, in the state of Texas, state funds have been directed away from organizations such as Planned Parenthood and into so-called crisis centers which are not required to have medically licensed personnel. Women are lured into CPCs with the offer of free pregnancy testing or HIV tests and then subjected to harrasment from anti-choice volunteers.

How fair or ethical is that?

I could provide citations--but all of you reading this should go find out for yourselves.

Sorry, but you provide no evidence for your "facts," and you can't, because they're false. Readers who want to check things out should follow the links in the piece, especially to the previous pieces on this topic, which have links to more detailed data.

The world's expert on this precise topic, who is adamantly pro-choice, has told me honestly and flatly that the there is a theoretical risk of fertilization followed by prevented implantation. Not a proven fact, for reasons laid out in the links. But a theoretic risk nonetheless. It's much better to be honest about such things rather than lie to people.

Will,

1) Quoting yourself from your opinion columns is not factual proof of anything. Why don't you name 'the world's expert' and link to the research? Saying something is theoretical doesn't mean anything - there is a theoretical possibility that the moon might crash into the earth tonight, but I wouldn't break out the umbrella.

2) You claim that the poster does not back his/her claim up with facts. OK - here's the link to the Plan B documentation:http://www.go2pl­anb.com/PDF/PlanBPI.pdf Search for Clinical Pharmacology, then look at Warnings. Here's the link to Henry Waxman's investigation of federally-funded 'crisis pregnancy clinics' and the lies they routinely use to frighten women:http://oversight.house.g­ov/documents/20060717101140-30­092.pdf

3) Where is the research that demonstrates pharmacists' complete knowledge of Plan B and its properties? On the other hand, test calls to Florida and Kentucky pharmacies showed a disturbing number who required up to a week to special-order the medication, completely invalidating its 72 hour period of effectiveness.

3) Finally, are you really willing to join 'Pharmacists for Life' say that every dose of the pill, every use of a condom, every spontaneous miscarriage should count as an abortion? If that's the case, then there's an entity that can only be called the Supreme Abortionist.

I've already said my piece on the points where we agree. Pharmacists for Life are misguided and counterproductive. That's their shame, and their right. Yes, the "crisis clinics" often lie. I said that, too. Still a way better use of their time than shooting Slepian or hauling Tiller before a grand jury.

Why is it so hard to follow the links? Here, I'll repost them for you. I'm just transposing them from the linked Slate piece.

http://ec.princeton.edu/

(The expert is James Trussell. Looks like he's taken down the site I linked to. Google him.)

<link>

<link>

This last one is the manufacturer's site for Plan B. Key quote: "Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb)."

Next.

OK, let's follow the selected links you provided. What's this at the Princeton site in response to How Emergency Contraception Works:

<link>

The money quote: "It does not cause an abortion."

And what's this at the Plan B site:

"It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy."

And Trussell's paper on the MOA specifically says "ECPs are not abortifacients". With the quality of links he was probably getting, I'm not surprised he took his site down.

So Will, could it be that you are deliberately averting your tender gaze while giving this fringe group your megaphone? Could it be that you are inflating theory and minimizing fact to suit your opinion? Next.

The link in question defines pregnancy as starting with implantation, so in context, it is using a different definition than was being used in the posts and to describe the pharmacists' objections.

ignoreland, you're now reduced to playing semantics. Of course Trussell says it's not abortion. Neither he nor I defines abortion to include prevention of implantation. But many, if not most, pro-lifers would define it that way, because for them the point is whether zygotic life is already underway, not whether there's a pregnancy to be terminated.

Try seeing things from the opposing point of view.

Oh, terrific - Will, you've written tens if not hundreds of thousands of closely parsed words on the topic, and you accuse me of playing semantics? So tell us what YOU think in one sentence - when does a pregnancy begin? Heck, I'll give you another sentence to throw in when life begins. Then you can perhaps tell us what YOU think is the acceptable method for couples to manipulate their bodies to control the age and speed with which they have children.

Having written so much about it, surely you have your philosophy articulated. Let's hear it.