THE BELL CURVE:

A decision that was a no-brainer three years ago finally came to pass, more or less, last week when the “morning-after-pill” — more formally known as the Plan B emergency contraception — was cleared for over-the-counter nonprescription access for people 18 and older. It was the culmination of a lengthy dispute that challenged the integrity of the Food and Drug Administration for its long refusal to act after two scientific advisory committees voted, 23-4, in favor of making the drug freely available.

Two FDA directors took a lot of heat from the religious right to delay or scratch altogether the easier access to the pill, mostly on the grounds that it would greatly increase promiscuity among young people — the theory being that if they don’t have to worry about pregnancy, they’ll be wallowing in sex.

In the interests of science, I checked with UC Irvine to find an expert in such matters and came up with Dr. Mark Vuchinich, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the UCI Medical Center. I asked him if he was surprised over the flap generated by this pill that does not end an established pregnancy and is considered remarkably safe.

He said: “The attacks on Plan B are nothing new. The same arguments have been made about every contraceptive that has come on the market over the years. Take birth-control pills, for example, which were at first resisted across the board, and were then restricted in many states clear into the 1970s.”

So what about the principal argument against the pills? Does he think Plan B would increase promiscuity?

“There is no evidence I know of,” Vuchinich said, “that Plan B is going to change sexual behavior much at all. Sexually active people will simply continue being sexually active. What it will assuredly do is help reduce — I would hope dramatically — the number of unwanted babies. That much of the opposition to Plan B has been coming from people who want to prevent abortions seems to me an odd set of circumstances, indeed.”

What does he see ahead for the morning-after pill?

“There are still many restrictions on Plan B,” he concluded. “It can be sold, by law, only to people over 18, and it is kept under the counter until proof of age is established. Although the fact that it is now available without a prescription is a definite plus, it was intended for all sexually active persons, and, I think, should be available to them, whatever the age. I just hope that can happen soon.”

It has puzzled me for many years that the anti-abortion people have been in the forefront of opposition to both sex education and new and better methods of contraception. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Since abstinence isn’t cutting it, is there a better way to deal with abortion than to support effective methods like Plan B to prevent the need for it in the first place?

At a community forum in a Costa Mesa school a few days ago, local police met with more than a hundred people to discuss an apparent increase in gang activity and what is being done to counteract it. A theme that came up strongly was the shortage of staff manpower to respond to non-emergency calls from citizens reporting suspicious activity.

According to a Pilot news story, Costa Mesa Police Capt. Ron Smith said that although there have been no cuts to targeted programs such as the gang unit, the department staff is at “some of the lowest levels we’ve ever had.”

Would this seem to be a rational time to stretch the focus and responsibilities of an understaffed local police force to assisting federal law enforcement officers in investigating immigration cases, as the City Council majority is advocating? Shouldn’t this question be a part of the debate on the illegal immigrant issue in the upcoming political debates?

I have just been told that if I want to protect a seat at a postseason Angels game, I have to come up with $850 this week. That represents my one-sixteenth portion of four season tickets that will get me and my daughter to one game in each of two division play-offs and the World Series. That might be reasonable — considering the current going prices — if the Angels make it to the World Series. But the kicker here is that if they don’t make it to post-season play at all or get knocked out early in the play-offs, the Angels will have the use of my money interest free — if previous experience holds — for several months if I request a rebate or until next season if I apply it to a 2007 season ticket.

This would be outrageous in any other business besides baseball, where the demand is such and the mystique so great that they can get away with it. I’m going to pass this year because I don’t think the Angels will get into the playoffs. But I’ll be hoping for the next month that I’m wrong.

At the risk of flogging a dead TV station, I would like to point out in response to Tom Johnson’s “I hate to say I told you so” column on KOCE that the virtual certainty of the state Supreme Court decision to void the sale of KOCE was a given in what I wrote. My main concern then was not with what we were losing but what we were getting. Still is.

I have two concerns in particular. First, Johnson is more willing to write off “zealots who may wish to occupy the public airways” than I am, especially when the airway in question is the only public TV station in Orange County. And, second, I see new evidence that in this society, money can buy anything, including my airways. Johnson is a pragmatist in these matters. I go there reluctantly.