Pieta Woolley's Plan B story ["Morning-after pill may head over the counter", Feb. 2-9] ably reflects the complexity of the issues surrounding emergency contraception. However, I take issue with founding member of B.C. Pharmacists for Conscience Cristina Alarcon's comments. Antichoice crusaders often make medical claims about drugs and medical procedures to shift the spotlight from their position on abortion.

For example, some claim that abortion causes cancer or has long-term health implications. There is no medical evidence to support this.

Ms. Alarcon's comments about the health implications of Plan B are not supported by medical evidence either. I would be the first person to criticize the pharmaceutical industry for unsafe drugs. Plan B doesn't warrant this criticism.

Abby Lippman, chair of the Canadian Women's Health Network and an epidemiologist at McGill University, is on the record stating that Plan B (levonorgestrel) "is safe, will not harm a fetus even if a woman is pregnant, and has no contraindications or serious adverse effects". The fact is, differing opinions about the availability of emergency contraception is really a debate about whether women should have control over their own bodies.

> Caryn Duncan / Vancouver Women's Health Collective

Regarding "Morning-after pill may head over the counter": I am not a pharmacist. Personally, I look at all possible alternatives before swallowing any pill. However, when my husband was very sick, our pharmacist was the one to prevent a catastrophe in the treatment ordered by his G.P., a doctor totally ignorant of the deadly interactions between the meds he had prescribed.

I wonder, then, why pharmacists should not have a say in protecting women from themselves? What if, in a panic, a young girl takes a pill too late and does not abort spontaneously? What intrauterine damage will affect the fetus; what damages will she do to herself?

In this day and age-except in the case of rape-why would a woman have to rely on that pill at all? What about education? Information? Prevention?

But, of course, that does not give the pharmacist the right to act without discretion and compassion.

> Jacqueline Maire / New Westminster