The over-the-counter sale of Plan B, an oral contraceptive also known as the "morning-after pill," is a controversial topic that has resurfaced in mainstream American news within the past few weeks. Liberal groups argue that the medication should be available over-the-counter, citing reproductive rights and decreased abortion rates. Conservative organizations disagree, arguing that the way in which Plan B works makes the drug an abortative and should therefore be restricted. Since the emergency contraception pill is such a controversial issue in current news, many writers with differing agendas have written articles about the topic. However, although these writers are discussing the same issue, each approaches over-the-counter sales of Plan B for different reasons and establishes kairos in different ways.

The issue of selling the Plan B contraceptive pill over-the-counter in the United States is currently a controversial topic not only in America but also in the United Kingdom. The author of the BBC News article "US Backs Morning-After Pill Sales" argues for the over-the-counter availability of Plan B. Although BBC News is a British publication, American liberals are also a part of its audience because of the more liberal attitude of both European culture and European press. Since liberals in general want Plan B to be available in America for over-the-counter sales, the author thus appeals to the beliefs and values of a liberal audience by including arguments such as the determined safety and effectiveness of the medication: "...the [FDA] has determined that Plan B is safe and effective for use by those 18 years of age and older as an over-the-counter product." The author argues that the emergency contraception pill prevents unwanted pregnancies by delaying ovulation and inhibiting implantation if taken within seventy-two hours of sexual intercourse, which is an argument used by liberals to support the over-the-counter sale of the pill. Additionally, the article both begins and concludes with statements about Plan B's availability in both the United States and the United Kingdom, evidence the author includes to further appeal to the pro-contraceptive beliefs and values of her target audience.

However, the author of "US Backs Morning-After Pill Sales" writes not only to inform readers about the newly approved over-the-counter status of the drug but also to argue that the issue needs to be further addressed at this point in time because an age restriction still applies to sales. In the first two sentences of the article, the author criticizes the age restriction through the use of the qualifying adverbs 'only' and 'still': "The drug, Plan B, will be sold only to women over the age of 18. Younger people will still need a prescription." Even though women eighteen and older can purchase the pill over-the-counter in pharmacies, the author creates a sense of urgency for addressing the Plan B issue now by stressing the lack of accessibility for underage girls. Since the target audience believes and values the effectiveness of Plan B in preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as the related issue of female reproductive rights, the author kairotically establishes urgency by arguing that girls under the restricted age of eighteen are nevertheless experiencing hindrances in making reproductive choices such as preventing pregnancy.

Deborah Ziff similarly argues that the issue concerning over-the-counter sales of Plan B needs to be presently addressed in her article "What's the Plan?" because the medication should be available over-the-counter. Written two years before the current FDA approval of over-the-counter Plan B sales, the May 2004 article was published in Mother Jones, a liberal publication. Like the author of the BBC News article, Ziff appeals to the beliefs and values of a liberal audience by privileging liberal viewpoints and arguments such as the emergency contraception pill's effectiveness in preventing unwanted pregnancies:

                  Plan B is a souped-up version of a regular hormonal
                  contraception. If taken within 72 hours of having sex, it
                  blocks pregnancy by preventing ovulation or fertilization. It
                  works with 89 percent effectiveness if taken in time.

Although Ziff includes conservative positions opposing the over-the-counter sale of the contraceptive medication such as concerns that girls under the age of eighteen might not "interpret the label [on the medication] adequately" and therefore misuse the drug, liberal arguments in the article out number conservative arguments eleven to three. Ziff furthermore establishes her viewpoint as liberal and therefore appeals to her target audience by introducing and ending her article with statements criticizing the current conservative decision to prohibit over-the-counter sales of Plan B.

Like the author of "US Backs Morning-After Pill Sales," Ziff writes her article not just to inform her target audience that the FDA disapproved over-the-counter sales of Plan B but more importantly to argue that the issue needs to be addressed now so that the FDA block can be reversed, making Plan B available over-the-counter. She argues for the medication's over-the-counter status because the agency based its decision on political interests rather than scientific findings: "The FDA's decision to ignore its own scientific advisory board and its own staff clearly demonstrates the leadership would rather pander to conservative interests than protect women's health and well-being." She argues that the FDA would rather gain support from conservative groups than use scientific evidence when making decisions about drug approval. In order to appeal to her audience as quickly as possible, Ziff opens her article with an argument stating the reason the FDA blocked over-the-counter sales, an argument that draws on the liberal dislike of the current conservative administration:

                  The decision flew in the face of the recommendation of an
                  advisory panel and caused womens rights activists and
                  lawmakers to complain that the Bush administration was,
                  once again, placing politics above science to win points
                  with its conservative base.

She similarly concludes the article by arguing that "the FDA should be given the benefit of the doubt — but not indefinitely," meaning that the decision to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B should not be accepted as the best decision indefinitely but that the decision should be reviewed in the future. Thus, Ziff contends that the Plan B issue needs to be discussed now because the decision to deny over-the-counter access needs to be overturned.

In addition to arguing that the decision against selling Plan B over-the-counter needs to be confronted now so that the FDA disapproval can be reversed, Ziff establishes a sense of urgency for addressing the issue sooner than later by stating that review of the decision cannot be postponed indefinitely. Disagreeing with conservative opponents of Plan B who cite the medication as morally equivalent to abortion, Ziff argues that the contraceptive needs to be readily available to both teenage girls and adult women as soon as possible because lower rates of unwanted pregnancies incoincidentally correspond to lower rates of abortions. She further creates a sense of urgency for her target audience by quoting Ruth Rosen of the San Francisco Chronicle, who argues that allowing over-the-counter access to Plan B actually reduces abortion rates:

                  To opponents of Plan B, who worry that easy access might
                  increase sexual promiscuity and that teenagers should have
                  clinical supervision, Wayne Shields, ARHP president
                  responded: "Theses arguments...are red herrings. In fact,
                  countries that allow OTC access to EC (emergency
                  contraception) and offer comprehensive sex and sexuality
                  education have far lower rates of teen pregnancy and
                  abortion than we do. It's a no-brainer."

By appealing to the liberal argument that Plan B prevents abortions, Ziff kairotically establishes urgency for reconsidering the FDA's block on over-the-counter Plan B sales by arguing that girls and women need unobstructed access to the contraceptive in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies and unnecessary abortions.

In contrast, Michelle Vu argues that the issue of over-the-counter Plan B sales needs to be discussed now because conservative opponents believe the pill is an abortative rather than a contraceptive. As such, she argues that the pill should not be readily available for purchase in pharmacies. She believes that the FDA's decision to allow over-the-counter sales of the medication needs to be reversed immediately. Titled "Christian Groups Condemn Over-the-Counter Plan B," her article was published in the Christian Post. Since her forum is a conservative Christian newspaper, Vu writes from a conservative viewpoint that is rhetorically effective in appealing to the similarly conservative beliefs and values of her target audience. Unlike Ziff and the author of "US Backs Morning-After Pill Sales," Vu mainly privileges conservative voices and arguments such as the belief that Plan B causes rather than prevents abortions to appeal to her audience, which includes pro-life and pro-family organizations. For example, Christian groups are against the use of Plan B because their belief is that life begins at fertilization and that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall is the same as aborting the fertilized egg. Vu uses this conservative position to argue that because one way in which the drug works to prevent pregnancy is by inhibiting implantation, Plan B is a form of abortion. Vu appeals to the anti-abortion beliefs and values of her target audience by including the argument that Plan B is an abortative. Furthermore, since abortion is currently a hot topic in America, her relating the emergency contraception pill to abortion expands her audience from only Plan B opponents to include anti-abortion advocates as well.

Like Ziff, Vu argues that the over-the-counter sale of Plan B needs to be addressed now because the decision should be reconsidered as soon as possible. Vu likewise opens her article with criticism about the FDA's recent approval to allow adults over the age of eighteen to purchase the medication over-the-counter in pharmacies, criticism that further appeals to the beliefs and values of her target audience:

                  Christian groups ranging from public policy to medical
                  doctors have responded to the FDA's decision to make Plan
                  B available without a prescription with grave concern and
                  condemnation, opposing the administrations' new policy on
                  the controversial drug.

However, Vu disagrees with liberal Plan B advocates and instead argues that the FDA should reverse its decision, once again blocking over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill. She argues that the issue concerning over-the-counter sales of Plan B needs to be addressed now because of personal health concerns and public safety for both teenage girls and adult women. Opposing liberal positions that deem Plan B as safe, she argues that over-the-counter sales of Plan B could lead to negative physical health problems and "harmful side effects" in girls and women because of misuse of the pill such as consuming larger doses than recommended or taking for long-term. In order to further gain support from her target audience, Vu also cites similar arguments against Plan B from other conservative groups such as Concerned Women for America and the Christian Medical Association. For example, she expands her argument by quoting Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family, another conservative organization with negative views on Plan B, who argues that even though an age restriction was established, adult men might give the pill to underage girls with negative intentions:

                  "This decision is a disaster and a danger for girls and their
                  parents....There are no safeguards, legal or otherwise, to
                  prevent this powerful drug from falling into the hands of
                  teen girls — or, worse, into the hands of men bent on
                  sexually exploiting teen girls by flashing a magic pill as a
                  promise that they won't have to worry about getting
                  pregnant."

Finally, Vu ends her article with a paragraph in which she provides information concerning when and where the medication will be sold over-the-counter:

                  The drug's manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., said it
                  aims to being non-prescription sales of Plan B by the end of
                  this year. Walmart, the world's no. 1 retailer, announced on
                  Friday it will carry Plan B for over-the-counter sale
                  possibly by the end of the year, according to CNN.

By concluding her argument with current plans to provide Plan B over-the-counter to women eighteen and older by the end of this year, Vu kairotically establishes urgency in addressing the issue through the introduction of time constraints. She argues that if the pill is going to be sold over-the-counter starting at the end of this year, then opponents only have a few months in which to get the decision reversed.

Unlike Ziff and Vu who write for liberal and conservative publications, Laura Blue published her article discussing the Plan B issue, "Why the Plan B Debate Won't Go Away," in Time magazine. Since Time is a mainstream American publication, Blue ideally targets an audience that consists of both liberal and conservative readers. In order to appeal to both target groups, Blue begins her article with an unbiased informational statement concerning the recent approval for over-the-counter Plan B sales:

                  The Food and Drug Administration may have ended a
                  three-year health-policy dispute when it approved the
                  "morning-after pill," Plan B, for over-the-counter sale
                  yesterday. But fall-out from the political feud surrounding
                  Plan B will play out for months. (Blue)

Blue similarly concludes her article with an agreement from opposite ends of the Plan B argument, a statement that appeals to both liberal and conservative audiences: "Perhaps one thing they all agree on is that Plan B could have been handled better." Regardless, "Why the Plan B Debate Won't Go Away" is not actually as neutral as Time magazine wants its articles and viewpoints to appear. Although she introduces and ends her article with seemingly neutral information statements, Blue appeals more to the beliefs and values of a more liberal target audience through the way in which she presents liberal and the opposing conservative positions on Plan B. Blue follows the neutral introduction and precedes the neutral conclusion with liberal viewpoints concerning the issue. For example, she presents the liberal argument that the age restriction on over-the-counter Plan B sales is negative, which is a liberal argument, directly before concluding the article with the neutral agreement between liberals and conservatives:

                  Meanwhile, even as groups like Planned Parenthood are
                  heralding yesterday's decision as a victory for reproductive
                  rights, they are angered that teens still face obstacles to
                  getting emergency contraceptives.

Blue also privileges a liberal voice in her article by the way in which she criticizes conservative positions. At the end of the third paragraph in which she describes how Plan B works to prevent pregnancy, Blue argues that "going against the medical experts' opinion was a sign that FDA leadership had caved to conservative political pressure" because of when the controversy over selling the pill over-the-counter began. The verb 'to cave' means 'to give in' or 'to yield to pressure,' the result of which is usually negatively associated with a concession to something that someone does not really want to do but does anyway for questionable reasons. Blue uses the verb to imply that the FDA may not have wanted to agree with conservative disapproval of over-the-counter Plan B sales but did so anyway for political reasons, although not entirely willingly. Therefore, even though Time magazine seems neutral, Blue appeals to the beliefs and values of a more liberal target audience.

Like Ziff in the liberal "What's the Plan?," Blue argues in "Why the Plan B Debate Won't Go Away" that although Plan B was recently approved by the FDA for over-the-counter sale in pharmacies, the issue still needs to be addressed because the debate about its over-the-counter status is not finished. Even though women over the age of eighteen will soon be able to purchase the medication without a prescription, Blue creates a sense of urgency for discussing the issue now by stressing the lack of access to emergency contraception for teenage girls. She appeals to her pro-reproductive rights beliefs and values of her target audience by arguing that if the Plan B issue is not dealt with as soon as possible, then the teen girls who need the pill the most will still have problems preventing unwanted pregnancies. Although opponents cite safety issues with the drug for girls under the age of sixteen due to lack of clinical studies, Blue further establishes urgency by quoting Carol Cox, spokeswoman for Barr Pharmaceuticals, who agrees with Plan B proponents that the age restriction can be removed if the FDA allows clinical testing on girls under the age of eighteen:

                  The decision to limit over-the-counter sales to women 18
                  and up was a compromise reached by the FDA and
                  announced by von Eschenbach — and it's a decision that
                  Barr still intends to challenge. "We'd like to continue to do
                  clinical work now to address the younger patients," says
                  spokeswoman Carol Cox.

Thus, Blue kairotically establishes urgency for addressing the Plan B issue now by arguing that the age restriction on over-the-counter sales hinders teenage girls from rightfully obtaining an emergency contraception that is eighty-nine percent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Publications like BBC News and Mother Jones clearly target liberal audiences because their writers focus on liberal positions concerning the controversial over-the-counter sale of Plan B such as the pill's effectiveness and safety in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Liberal author Deborah Ziff and the author of "US Backs Morning-After Pill Sales" even criticize conservative arguments, which further appeals to the beliefs and values of a more liberal audience. Similarly, Michelle Vu of the Christian Post indisputably targets a more conservative audience by citing Plan B opponents who argue that the medication is a dangerous and immoral drug that should not under any circumstances be available over-the-counter. Time magazine, although a seemingly unbiased publication, is not as clear-cut in its target audience. Laura Blue of Time is able to successfully establish kairos for a liberal argument advocating the over-the-counter sale of Plan B in an article that outwardly appeals to both liberal and conservative audiences, which ultimately inspires questions concerning a related controversial issue. Even though Time and similar mainstream publications strive to appear neutral, is mainstream media in America actually liberal?

Blue, Laura. "Why the Plan B Debate Won't Go Away." Time. 25 Aug. 2006. Time. 30 Aug. 2006. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1333925,00.html>

"US Backs Morning-After Pill Sales." BBC News. 24 Aug. 2006. BBC News. 30 Aug. 2006. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5282572.stm>

Vu, Michelle. "Christian Groups Condemn Over-the-Counter Plan B." Christian Post. 27 Aug. 2006. Christian Post. 30 Aug. 2006. <http://www.christianpost.com/pages/print.htm?aid24022>

Ziff, Deborah. "What' the Plan?" Mother Jones. 14 May. 2004. Mother Jones. 30 Aug. 2006. <http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/05/05_519.html>