Tag Archives: Sex

Plan B does not mean abortion

Plan B explaining what it is, and having talked to people myself about it, I still hear people say the morning after pill is an abortion pill.
I can understand how some people would get confused because it is taken after unprotected sex or an accident. However, the two pills have different functions.
The morning after pill is not the abortion pill (just to clarify). It does not get rid of an existing pregnancy. Plan B, and other brands, are essentially a large dose of the same hormone found in birth control pills, levonorgestrel. This prevents ovulation and thickens the cervical mucus preventing the sperm from joining the egg, preventing pregnancy in the same manner as other forms of hormonal birth control.
Plan B is one brand of the morning after pill. It requires you to only take one pill, while others require two. You have up to 120 hours to take the pill but it is 89% effective for 72 hours. After those first 72 hours, the effectiveness of the pill decreases.
The sooner you take it, the better. In brands that have two pills the second pill is taken 12 hours after the first.
The abortion pill is taken after an egg has been fertilized, and it has attached to the wall of the uterus… simply put, after an individual is actually pregnant.
Getting a morning after pill does not require a prescription. The abortion pill requires a visit to the doctor and a discussion about alternative options.
The morning after pill should not be used as a regular form of birth control.
It is hard on your body and may make you sick for a few days following which could include nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, breast tenderness and changes in your period. Use a method of contraception or birth control that works for you, and if intercourse happens and that method fails (the condom breaks, you forget to take the pill for a day or two, etc.,) then resort to the morning after pill.

Kourtney Bailey

Kourtney Bailey can be reached at
linfieldreviewbailey@gmail.com.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

A few weeks ago I was given The Linfield Review and asked to read the article from “Ask Bailey,” regarding anal sex

Later, I was asked to read another article from the same column about oral sex.

Well, I’m sure like many, I was shocked to say the least to find such topics in the school newspaper.

Then I thought, “Oh, I get it, I understand. Here’s how I bet it went with the author and editor.

‘Hey I know, I’ll write something just to see how far I can go or get away with.’”

Or, maybe the conversation went like this.

“’I’ll just push the envelope or see what kind of reaction there will be. And, furthermore, I can do it under freedom of speech or freedom of the press.’”

O.K. I get that. It worked.

But really, come on editor for allowing this in the school paper. Come on Bailey for writing this.

Do we really want something like this in The Linfield Review?

Is this really “journalism” at its finest?

I mean, come on people, is this something that alumni coming on campus for a football game or someone with their son or daughter coming here to look over the campus to possibly go here needs to see?

Shouldn’t this be on someone’s blog instead?

Or, just maybe, we should ask deeper questions like, “Why after sex do you still feel at times insecure or incomplete?” “Why do you still have a feeling of emptiness?”

Or, how about this one?

“If there is a God, what does He think about this behavior?”

Well, I’d better stop there. That would be a lot to think about under freedom of speech.

I couldn’t get away with that one for sure!

Come on editor! Come on Bailey! Is this really what we want in The Linfield Review?

This is our paper and a reflection of us both, past and present.

Linfield is a classy college.

Is this really what we want to show off to the community, alumni and staff?

Surely we can do better.

Let’s quit playing games with freedom of speech.


Linfield alumnus,

Dr. Dave Tillstrom

Student faces multiple counts of sex crime charges

After appearing at a preliminary hearing March 22 in Washington County Circuit Court on a charge of first-degree sexual abuse, sophomore Kyle McLennan was arraigned after pleading not guilty on a secret indictment and is now facing 25 counts of various sex crime charges.

The latest charges allege that he had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl about three years ago and a 15-year-old girl about two years ago, according to court documents.

The charges include three counts of first-degree rape, three counts of second-degree rape, six counts of first-degree sexual abuse, two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, three counts of first-degree sexual penetration, three counts of second-degree penetration and five counts of third-degree sodomy.

Court documents reveal that between May 1, 2009 and Sept. 1, 2009, McLennan engaged in sexual intercourse and sexual contact by means of forcible compulsion with the 13-year-old victim.

Documents also show that between June 23, 2010 and June 22, 2011, McLennan engaged in deviate sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse with the 15-year-old victim. In addition, he engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with the same girl between June 23, 2011 and Oct. 11, 2011.

Both girls came forward before the court as witnesses. However, The Linfield Review does not publish the names of minors who are alleged victims in sexual crimes.

As part of McLennan’s security release agreement, he is not allowed to have any direct or indirect contact with the victims or minors.

Court documents show that McLennan is not to go within 100 yards of the victims’ residence, work, vehicle or person.

McLennan’s next trial is set for 9 a.m. June 6 in Washington County Circuit Court.

First-degree rape, second-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, first-degree sexual penetration and second-degree sexual penetration are all Measure 11 crimes, which carry a mandatory minimum sentence of more than six years in prison.

McLennan’s attorney, Robin Runstein of Kell, Alterman & Runstein, declined to comment about the case on McLennan’s behalf.

McLennan was arrested Feb. 10 at his off-campus residence by Hillsboro detectives on accusations that he engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor in 2008, according to Lt. Mike Rouches, a Hillsboro police spokesman.

McLennan, a business management major and defensive line football player, “was suspended from the football team, pending the outcome of his case,” Mardi Mileham, director of communications said in a prior interview.

“The college’s athletic policy calls for a student to be immediately suspended from any athletic team upon an arrest. He was notified of his suspension,” Mileham said.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Jessica Prokop/
Editor-in-chief
Jessica Prokop can be reached at linfieldrevieweditor@gmail.com