SNL/Fey/Poehler lampoon Palin/Couric CBS interview

[DH]

This, IMO, was brilliant:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

[busyba]

When she started using some of Palin's actual responses in the sketch, that was brilliant.

I mean, how could anyone make up something more ridiculous than the stuff she says herself? :)

[procrastinator]

When she started using some of Palin's actual responses in the sketch, that was brilliant.

I mean, how could anyone make up something more ridiculous than the stuff she says herself? :)

I suspect that some portion of the viewers missed that fact. Too bad there wasn't a way to point it out to the audience without being too, too blatant.

[jgerry]

Unfortunately, I think that if the viewer didn't know that a lot of that was her actual responses, word for word, that the skit might have come off as too mean-spirited. How fucking scary is that??

[grondramb]

funny

[Otto]

CNN talking about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMypXCUWMw

[Drewster]

I didn't see the Couric interview, thought it was hysterical. I suspected it was heavily weighed on actual responses.

[5thcrewman]

Katie Couric blinks a lot

[smak]

They should have done a South Parkian "This is what Palin actually believes" chyron.

-smak-

[robin]

When she started using some of Palin's actual responses in the sketch, that was brilliant.


She used one of my favorites!

[robin]

Katie Couric blinks a lot

I thought Poehler overplayed that. The voice & vocal mannerisms were dead on. :up:

[busyba]

Katie Couric blinks a lot

And wears way too much mascara apparently. :)

[scottjf8]

Wow, I didn't realize that was an actual line from that real interview. I just thought Tina was being funny :D

[Mikkel_Knight]

Wow, I didn't realize that was an actual line from that real interview. I just thought Tina was being funny :D
+1

Stunned... why is she still part of the McCain ticket? She is going to KILL him (figuratively) on Nov. 4

[TheIndependent]

Wow, I didn't realize that was an actual line from that real interview. I just thought Tina was being funny :D
+1

Stunned... why is she still part of the McCain ticket? She is going to KILL him (figuratively) on Nov. 4

i think the upcoming debate will make it happen well b4 Nov4 :)

[QueenBee]

I'm watching Katie Couric right now. She has on too much eye makeup. And she's blinking a lot. I never noticed that before the Saturday Night Live sketch. I can't wait until Sarah Palin comes on. I'd fast forward, but the economic news is too interesting to skip.

[nataylor]

That joint McCain/Palin interview was just about as bad as Palin's other stuff. Somebody on Digg said it best: They didn't look Presidential. They looked like a nervous couple applying for a loan.

[DH]

That joint McCain/Palin interview was just about as bad as Palin's other stuff. Somebody on Digg said it best: They didn't look Presidential. They looked like a nervous couple applying for a loan.

A $7,000,000,000.00 loan? :2funny:

[Jobeth66]

In the McCain/Palin/Couric interview, it looked like she brought her daddy to the principal's office to get her out of detention.

He was condescending, not only to his *running mate*, but to the American people. After he answers a question that Katie posed to Palin, he then turns to Palin and says 'but she can speak for herself'. Um, REALLY? Because it sure didn't look that way to me.

And to dismiss a comment that Palin made to a voter because it was "at a pizza place", and the question was "out of context", and oh, that was one of those "gotcha journalism" things...HUH?? She was asked what should be done about Pakistan by a concerned American. She SAID what should be done. No "out of context". No "gotcha journalism", because there WAS no journalism involved there - just a lucky bystander with their cell phone on "record".

It's not PALIN'S fault that her idea of what should be done is in agreement with what Obama's been saying, and in direct contradiction to what McCain said. Of course, McCain then backtracks and says "of course that's what we SHOULD do, but we don't TALK about it!!"

Ohhhhkayyyy.

I just don't want these two running our country. Not that I want the other two running our country, but they don't scare me as much.

[DH]

Apparently there is footage that CBS has where Palin was unable to name a single SCOTUS decision other than Roe Vs. Wade, and it is supposed to air this week as part of the pre-debate Vice Presidential Questions Series:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/cbs-theres-no-more-palin_n_130231.html

[Michael]

I think katie Couric should receive the highest honor one can restow for her profession. Any and all awards for this year need to go to her for not laughing her ass off in the interview with Palin and also for not just standing up, walking over and smacking the shit out of her. I would be okay with her getting an Oscar, a Grammy, and Emmy and a Pulitzer. She was that controlled!!! :)

[grondramb]

Apparently there is footage that CBS has where Palin was unable to name a single SCOTUS decision other than Roe Vs. Wade, and it is supposed to air this week as part of the pre-debate Vice Presidential Questions Series:


It that is accurate.
And this is accurate

"The series is based on the Presidential Questions series," the source says, "in which Couric asks the candidates the same set of questions on wide range of topics from policy to character to leadership."

Then it sounds like her handlers screwed up - they should have known that about Couric. that's why campaigns have Josh Lymons and Toby Ziglers.

[DH]

Apparently there is footage that CBS has where Palin was unable to name a single SCOTUS decision other than Roe Vs. Wade, and it is supposed to air this week as part of the pre-debate Vice Presidential Questions Series:


It that is accurate.
And this is accurate

"The series is based on the Presidential Questions series," the source says, "in which Couric asks the candidates the same set of questions on wide range of topics from policy to character to leadership."

Then it sounds like her handlers screwed up - they should have known that about Couric. that's why campaigns have Josh Lymons and Toby Ziglers.

Um, I would think the fact that they chose her as the veep candidate in the first place might be the first clue as to their screwupedness.....

[Martin Tupper]

Then it sounds like her handlers screwed up - they should have known that about Couric. that's why campaigns have Josh Lymons and Toby Ziglers.Known what about Couric? That she might ask questions befitting a Vice Presidential candidate?

While no one should expect the candidates to have every SCOTUS decision committed to memory, ANY serious candidate should be interested enough in the law to have a few favorites and/or least favorites about which they can hold a semi-intelligent discussion. You'd think that decisions like Kelo and Lawrence would be high atop the shit list of any self-respecting conservative. Conversely how could she not praise the recent Heller decision?

[DH]

Then it sounds like her handlers screwed up - they should have known that about Couric. that's why campaigns have Josh Lymons and Toby Ziglers.Known what about Couric? That she might ask questions befitting a Vice Presidential candidate?

While no one should expect the candidates to have every SCOTUS decision committed to memory, ANY serious candidate should be interested enough in the law to have a few favorites and/or least favorites about which they can hold a semi-intelligent discussion. You'd think that decisions like Kelo and Lawrence would be high atop the shit list of any self-respecting conservative. Conversely how could she not praise the recent Heller decision?


And what about that all time conservative favorite (at least until he W lost his luster with the base) Bush vs. Gore??? You would think she would have at least remembered that one. I know I'll never forget it, even after I am dead (and even if dead means a pure dirt nap with no conscious awareness whatsover - I'll even figure out a way to remember it then..;-)

[smak]

Apparently there is footage that CBS has where Palin was unable to name a single SCOTUS decision other than Roe Vs. Wade, and it is supposed to air this week as part of the pre-debate Vice Presidential Questions Series:


It that is accurate.
And this is accurate

"The series is based on the Presidential Questions series," the source says, "in which Couric asks the candidates the same set of questions on wide range of topics from policy to character to leadership."

Then it sounds like her handlers screwed up - they should have known that about Couric. that's why campaigns have Josh Lymons and Toby Ziglers.


Right because Bartlett had to be told about Supreme Court decisions.

-smak-

[grondramb]

Then it sounds like her handlers screwed up - they should have known that about Couric. that's why campaigns have Josh Lymons and Toby Ziglers.Known what about Couric? That she might ask questions befitting a Vice Presidential candidate?


That she asks a standard set of questions...

[grondramb]

BTW, part three airs tonight...

Cafferty: Are Palin’s interviews with Couric helping her? (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/cafferty-are-palin%e2%80%99s-interviews-with-couric-helping-her/)
Posted: 01:39 PM ET

From CNN's Jack Cafferty (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-jack-cafferty/)
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/30/art.palin.ohio.ap.jpg Part III of the Couric-Palin interview will air tonight.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

Last Friday, we ran a piece of tape from an interview Governor Sarah Palin did with "CBS Evening News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/eveningnews/main4487826.shtml)" anchor Katie Couric. She was asked about the bailout package. Palin rambled on incoherently for nearly a minute about trade, jobs, health care… Everything but the bailout package.
That segment of the Cafferty File was posted on YouTube and as of today has received more than one million, one hundred thousand hits.
Watch: Jack Cafferty's YouTube Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc)

Well guess what? She's ba-ack.

[nataylor]

Well, you can't say Palin isn't well read. After all, when it comes to newspapers and magazines, she reads ALL OF THEM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

[procrastinator]

Well, you can't say Palin isn't well read. After all, when it comes to newspapers and magazines, she reads ALL OF THEM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

I was just watching that video. She comes off as an idiot, not being able to list a single publication that she reads. I suspect that she reads a reasonable number of things but she's afraid to name them for fear she'll be torn apart for her choices. Then again, maybe she's just an idiot who doesn't read.

--Debbie

[busyba]

Then again, maybe she's just an idiot who doesn't read.

Which is a farily accurate description of GWB, and we all know how well that worked out....

[Mikkel_Knight]

Well, you can't say Palin isn't well read. After all, when it comes to newspapers and magazines, she reads ALL OF THEM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

I was just watching that video. She comes off as an idiot, not being able to list a single publication that she reads. I suspect that she reads a reasonable number of things but she's afraid to name them for fear she'll be torn apart for her choices. Then again, maybe she's just an idiot who doesn't read.

--Debbie
Nah - I think she was right...

She just reads whatever is in front of her be it the local newspaper or USA Today. Whatever is there she'll just read.

[TheIndependent]

She was asked about the bailout package. Palin rambled on incoherently for nearly a minute about trade, jobs, health care…

you mean like McCain and Obama did during their debate?

[busyba]

She was asked about the bailout package. Palin rambled on incoherently for nearly a minute about trade, jobs, health care…

you mean like McCain and Obama did during their debate?

No, he doesn't. Even McCain was coherent.

[TheIndependent]

She was asked about the bailout package. Palin rambled on incoherently for nearly a minute about trade, jobs, health care…

you mean like McCain and Obama did during their debate?

No, he doesn't. Even McCain was coherent.

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

[busyba]

you mean like McCain and Obama did during their debate?

No, he doesn't. Even McCain was coherent.

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

but neither did they ramble incoherently to the point where they could be quoted verbatim in an SNL sketch and be funnier than the fictional parts of the sketch.

[Old7]

She is embarrassed because she only reads the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (http://www.frontiersman.com), but she reads every page of it every Wednesday when it comes out.

[DH]

you mean like McCain and Obama did during their debate?

No, he doesn't. Even McCain was coherent.

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

Barack Obama stright from the transcript:


And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.
And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?
So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.
Number one, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.
Number two, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns.
Number three, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.


And, number four, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.
Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.

[busyba]

No, he doesn't. Even McCain was coherent.

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

Barack Obama stright from the transcript:


And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.
And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?
So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.
Number one, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.
Number two, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns.
Number three, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.


And, number four, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.
Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.




Pfffft! Using facts is so elitist. :rolleyes:

[TheIndependent]

if that is your idea of talking about the bailout, it's no wonder we're in trouble as a nation.

[Mikkel_Knight]

if that is your idea of talking about the bailout, it's no wonder we're in trouble as a nation.
Is Obama talking about something other than?

[DH]

if that is your idea of talking about the bailout, it's no wonder we're in trouble as a nation.

Way to shift the goalposts. You could have said something like "they didn't discuss the bailout in a way I found to be sufficient"

but you said:

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

So I provided irrefutable evidence that you were wrong, but instead of admitting that or clarifying your remarks, you retreated to your usual "we are all fucked because this country is run by a bunch of fucking morons" position (which may be a fair argument to make, but it's a pretty cheap way to try and wriggle your way out of arguments over and over again).

[smak]

if that is your idea of talking about the bailout, it's no wonder we're in trouble as a nation.

Way to shift the goalposts. You could have said something like "they didn't discuss the bailout in a way I found to be sufficient"

but you said:

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

So I provided irrefutable evidence that you were wrong, but instead of admitting that or clarifying your remarks, you retreated to your usual "we are all fucked because this country is run by a bunch of fucking morons" position (which may be a fair argument to make, but it's a pretty cheap way to try and wriggle your way out of arguments over and over again).

Ouch!

Daniel - 1,000
Paul - Incomplete

-smak-

[TheIndependent]

if that is your idea of talking about the bailout, it's no wonder we're in trouble as a nation.

Way to shift the goalposts. You could have said something like "they didn't discuss the bailout in a way I found to be sufficient"

but you said:

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

So I provided irrefutable evidence that you were wrong,

no you didn't. he used overview concepts such as "oversight", "no parachutes" and "helping homeowners". he provided ZERO specifics about his ideas, just like most of his other plans you all seem to believe are so good (oh, look, $500billion for "green jobs"). he's really quite skilled at saying absolutely nothing specific about any of his proposals, and invoking feel good "for the people" populist phrases. you all buy it hook line and sinker and think he's the greatest thing. i see straight through it.

[timesamillion]

so describe what "specifics" you'd want to see and we'll all then know how inferior Obama's "specifics" are. It's all the same bullshit that people have been hanging on him for the last 6 months.

[DH]

if that is your idea of talking about the bailout, it's no wonder we're in trouble as a nation.

Way to shift the goalposts. You could have said something like "they didn't discuss the bailout in a way I found to be sufficient"

but you said:

neither one of them addressed the bailout at all.

So I provided irrefutable evidence that you were wrong,

no you didn't. he used overview concepts such as "oversight", "no parachutes" and "helping homeowners". he provided ZERO specifics about his ideas, just like most of his other plans you all seem to believe are so good (oh, look, $500billion for "green jobs"). he's really quite skilled at saying absolutely nothing specific about any of his proposals, and invoking feel good "for the people" populist phrases. you all buy it hook line and sinker and think he's the greatest thing. i see straight through it.

There ya go again....

Now you say that he only addressed it using "overview concepts" but before you said he didn't address it at all. So now even you are admitting he addressed it, just not in a way you found to be sufficient or satisfactory. Fair enough. But that was not what you said in your OP. It's plain as day Paul - you posted it. Do I need to quote you again?

Or do I just need to come to Texas and slap you silly? ;)

[TheIndependent]

i don't consider his populist phrases as addressing the issue - at all.

but hey, one thing you can be very happy about, and that's that your views on how this country should be run are going to come to fruition. doesn't even matter who wins the election, they are all basically the same.

oh, and you are always invited to come on down to texas, we do a TC lunch every thursday that i go to from time to time. scottjf8 too :)

[smak]

i don't consider his populist phrases as addressing the issue - at all.



You may not think Obama or discussed the actual issues that got us into this mess in the first place, nor discussed better ways to get it out of it, but discussing the actual bailout itself? He obviously did that.

-smak-

[Skanter]

Getting back to Palin (forgetting for the moment PDJ's obvious fuckup), it's been discovered that she rarely reads, but, unlike McCain, uses more modern technology to get her information. This was found in her purse, next to the lipstick::









http://www.bowhunter.com/editorial/BH0707_edit3.jpg

[DH]

i don't consider his populist phrases as addressing the issue - at all.

but hey, one thing you can be very happy about, and that's that your views on how this country should be run are going to come to fruition. doesn't even matter who wins the election, they are all basically the same.

oh, and you are always invited to come on down to texas, we do a TC lunch every thursday that i go to from time to time. scottjf8 too :)

$1-$2 blinds?

[TheIndependent]

i don't consider his populist phrases as addressing the issue - at all.

but hey, one thing you can be very happy about, and that's that your views on how this country should be run are going to come to fruition. doesn't even matter who wins the election, they are all basically the same.

oh, and you are always invited to come on down to texas, we do a TC lunch every thursday that i go to from time to time. scottjf8 too :)

$1-$2 blinds?

$8 buffalo burger, much better :)

[Mikkel_Knight]

$1-$2 blinds?

$8 buffalo burger, much better :)
Mia's.

[nataylor]

She doesn't even know what the Morning After Pill is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77WekmM8F8

[TheIndependent]

She doesn't even know what the Morning After Pill is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77WekmM8F8

she calls it "that type of contraception", which can be read one of two ways
1) she has no clue about the morning after pill being an abortion pill

2) she knows full well what it is, and considers that calling it a 'type of contraception' is more palatable to women that support abortion then her coming out directly against it.

[nataylor]

I think position #2 is pretty unlikely. That's too nuanced an answer for her.

[Jobeth66]

She keeps saying she'd counsel them to "choose life" and make "adoptions easier" (is it difficult to give up a baby for adoption)? She said she wouldn't put a woman who had an abortion in jail - but she NEVER answered the question if she thought abortion should be illegal.

And if she thinks life begins at conception, and thinks that should be codified into law, then why WOULDN'T you put a woman who has an abortion in jail as a murderer? Why would she want to protect those criminals?

[DH]

She keeps saying she'd counsel them to "choose life" and make "adoptions easier" (is it difficult to give up a baby for adoption)? She said she wouldn't put a woman who had an abortion in jail - but she NEVER answered the question if she thought abortion should be illegal.

And if she thinks life begins at conception, and thinks that should be codified into law, then why WOULDN'T you put a woman who has an abortion in jail as a murderer? Why would she want to protect those criminals?

That is the paradox of the anti-choice crowd, isn't it?

[busyba]

She doesn't even know what the Morning After Pill is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77WekmM8F8

she calls it "that type of contraception", which can be read one of two ways
1) she has no clue about the morning after pill being an abortion pill

2) she knows full well what it is, and considers that calling it a 'type of contraception' is more palatable to women that support abortion then her coming out directly against it.

3) She sees no distinction between abortion and contraception.

[nataylor]

3) She sees no distinction between abortion and contraception.
That can't be right because she said she's all for contraception.

[grondramb]

How you know when you've done a good parody

Oops! Newspapers around the world use SNL pic as official Palin one - VIDEO




http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tvsquad.com/media/2008/10/snlpalin20081001.gif
As I was eating breakfast while flipping the pages of a French local newspaper this morning, my eyes caught the picture above, which accompanied an article about Sarah Palin (http://www.le933.com/images/contenus/image/soleilPalin.jpg). I couldn't put my finger on it right away, but I knew there was a problem with this picture. The caption under it says that during interviews, Palin is hesitant, troubled and clumsy but didn't offer more on where the picture was taken and who was on the right.

All day, I tried to discover what was wrong with the picture. Thanks to Quebec's news station 93,3 (http://le933.com/), which I listen to in the afternoon, I learned what was wrong about it: it's a picture of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler in a recent Saturday Night Live (http://www.tvsquad.com/category/saturday-night-live/) sketch! Oops!

[busyba]

How you know when you've done a good parody [snip]
I don't know if that speaks well of the parody as much as it speaks poorly of the subject ofthe parody. :)

Once upon a time someone said that you know the company you work for is in trouble when your job starts to resemble a Dilbert cartoon. There has to be a similar analogy for presidential campaigns that are indistinguishable from SNL sketches.

[bigpuma]

She doesn't even know what the Morning After Pill is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77WekmM8F8

she calls it "that type of contraception", which can be read one of two ways
1) she has no clue about the morning after pill being an abortion pill

2) she knows full well what it is, and considers that calling it a 'type of contraception' is more palatable to women that support abortion then her coming out directly against it.

The "morning after pill" is not the same thing as Mifepristone aka RU486 or the abortion pill. The morning after pill is a high dose of oral contraception taken within 72 hours of intercourse to prevent ovulation so she is correct in her answer IMO.

it seems to be you and Katie Couric that are confusing the terms here.

Although it is still up in the air if she really knows what it is.

Morning After Pill (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm)

Abortion Pill (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/abortion/state-abortion-restrictions/reports/mifepristone-expanding-womens-options-early-abortion-united-states-6128.htm)

ETA: That said some anti abortion folks consider the morning after pill to be an abortion pill due to it's secondary effect of inhibiting implantation of the fetus, however the medical community does not consider conception to begin until implantation.

ETA: fixed conception instead of contraception

[TheIndependent]

the medical community may consider it to be at implantation, but the pro-life people certainly do not. to them, it's the fusing of sperm/egg that is "conception". anything that works to destroy / prohibit that is considered bad/against their beliefs.

[mbklein]

Once upon a time someone said that you know the company you work for is in trouble when your job starts to resemble a Dilbert cartoon. There has to be a similar analogy for presidential campaigns that are indistinguishable from SNL sketches.
A fellow conference attendee just said, "If irony died when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, satire died when Sarah Palin started writing for SNL."

[busyba]

Once upon a time someone said that you know the company you work for is in trouble when your job starts to resemble a Dilbert cartoon. There has to be a similar analogy for presidential campaigns that are indistinguishable from SNL sketches.
A fellow conference attendee just said, "If irony died when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, satire died when Sarah Palin started writing for SNL."


Ooo! I like that. :up:

[bigpuma]

the medical community may consider it to be at implantation, but the pro-life people certainly do not. to them, it's the fusing of sperm/egg that is "conception". anything that works to destroy / prohibit that is considered bad/against their beliefs.

I believe it is more divided than you are suggesting. Yes, there is a group of pro-lifers who have a problem with "the morning after pill" but there are plenty of folks who are pro-life that don't consider it to be an abortion. Remember the primary mechanism for stopping a pregnancy with "the morning after pill" is by preventing ovulation so the egg is never fertilized. That is the reason the effectiveness drops off over time after intercourse. Taken within 2 hours of intercourse emergency contraception is nearly as effective as taking birth control pills normally.

[busyba]

Remember the primary mechanism for stopping a pregnancy with "the morning after pill" is by preventing ovulation

To the best of my understanding, the above is completely wrong.

IIRC, it's implantation, not ovulation.

[Agatha]

Remember the primary mechanism for stopping a pregnancy with "the morning after pill" is by preventing ovulation

To the best of my understanding, the above is completely wrong.

IIRC, it's implantation, not ovulation.
busyba is right. It's to prevent implantation, not ovulation. It tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant, thereby preventing another implantation. Otherwise, the uterus would get real crowded, real fast.

[TheIndependent]

i'm no doctor, but i do believe the morning after pills do both, blocking ovulation and preventing implantation of the fertilized egg. at least that's my recollection from listening to the pro-life view when on the campaign trail. the pro-life people were STRONGLY against the morning after pill because of the implantation prevention of the new life (their words)

[busyba]

i'm no doctor, but i do believe the morning after pills do both, blocking ovulation and preventing implantation of the fertilized egg. at least that's my recollection from listening to the pro-life view

But keep in mind that the most common demographic group amongst the pro-lifers are, uh, generally less than well-versed in matters of science. ;)

[TheIndependent]

i'm no doctor, but i do believe the morning after pills do both, blocking ovulation and preventing implantation of the fertilized egg. at least that's my recollection from listening to the pro-life view

But keep in mind that the most common demographic group amongst the pro-lifers are, uh, generally less than well-versed in matters of science. ;)

yes, i understand that, i was pointing out their view of the morning after pill and how it's not considered a 'contraceptive device' but an 'abortion method'. i didn't say i agree with them.

[procrastinator]

Remember the primary mechanism for stopping a pregnancy with "the morning after pill" is by preventing ovulation

To the best of my understanding, the above is completely wrong.

IIRC, it's implantation, not ovulation.
busyba is right. It's to prevent implantation, not ovulation. It tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant, thereby preventing another implantation. Otherwise, the uterus would get real crowded, real fast.

Planned Parenthood agrees with bigpuma that the morning after pill prevents ovulation, not implantation.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm#work

"The hormones in the morning after pill work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the morning after pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

Some people say that the morning after pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens."

[bigpuma]

To the best of my understanding, the above is completely wrong.

IIRC, it's implantation, not ovulation.
busyba is right. It's to prevent implantation, not ovulation. It tricks the body into thinking it is already pregnant, thereby preventing another implantation. Otherwise, the uterus would get real crowded, real fast.

Planned Parenthood agrees with bigpuma that the morning after pill prevents ovulation, not implantation.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm#work

"The hormones in the morning after pill work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the morning after pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

Some people say that the morning after pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens."

Thanks, that's just what I was coming to post. :)

[nataylor]

Oh, this answers it all. She was just impatient!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/06/2008-10-06_sarah_palin_interview_flubs_were_to_keep.html


"Evidently, there's some interest in what I've been reading lately," she told a crowd in Clearwater. "I think that this comes from - it's a result of a probably less than successful interview that I had recently with, kind of, mainstream media" – a quip that drew loud boos from the crowd.

"Yet, you know what? In response to critics after that interview what I should have told them was I was just trying to keep Tina Fey in business, just giving her more information," Palin said to loud applause. "Job security for SNL characters."

"Really in that interview I was just getting really impatient because I was so convinced that Americans want to hear about the issues that are so important in your life," Palin told the crowd, reeling off a list that included the economy, the war and education.

[keirgrey]

I looked like an uninformed doofus on national TV for you, the American People!

[Jobeth66]

I looked like an uninformed doofus on national TV for you, the American People!

No, no! It's because she and John McCain know how to relate to Hockey Moms and Joe Sixpack! She and John McCain know that the regular people don't care if she reads the Wall Street Journal and US News and World Report and that kind of liberal elite, main-stream-media "gotcha" type Washington-insider stuff that mavericks like she and John McCain are hoping they'll be gosh-darn privileged enough to be elected into office to fight.

[keirgrey]

So, they're both reveling in being uninformed doofuses for us, the American People? Not the smart ones, of course, they worry too much about things like accountability and other elitey things. We should let McCain and Palin be the sort of mavericks that GWB is! After all, history will show that GWB was the "Best President Evar!"

[jgerry]

That darned gotcha media, with their liberal "gotcha" questions! Do I come off as an uninformed doofus? You betcha! Do you, the republican base, think that's a good thing? You betcha!