The FDA wants Plan B contraception to be available to women/girls of "childbearing age" without a prescription.
I mean hey, you can get condoms at the drug store (or dispensaries in any bar restroom). Why not back-up contraception?
But today Obama nixed that idea.
My opinion on this may surprise some (who think us libtards think in lockstep on all issues).
I support Obama's decision on this.
1. I don't like the idea of 11-year-olds popping morning after pills like candy.
2. I have a bad feeling about this pill. As "the pill" has come to light as causing long-term health problems for women, I just know "Plan B" will be shown to cause cancer, sterility, blood clots or other equally heinous health problem. Unlimited access WILL increase the likelihood of multiple (if not routine) usage. Not a good idea.
As per the other thread going on the FDA, it seems to me that the FDA is very hasty to rush drugs to market which later must be recalled because they turn out to be lethal...
What do you think?
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about this move. On the one hand, not every woman is able to make it to a clinic in time to get Plan B, and every woman deserves as much opportunity as possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy in case of an accident. It's better in every possible way to prevent it than to end it after the fact.
On the other hand, Plan B is called Plan B for a reason. It's a backup method to be used in case of the failure of your real birth control method, not as your primary form of birth control, and I am equally uncomfortable with the possibility of women (of any age!) popping it like Tylenol. At least if you have to go to a clinic, they'll notice that you're having awfully frequent "accidents" and try to get you on a better form of birth control.
What a shock, Kerry. You and I think virtually alike. You expressed my ambivalence very well. Thanks!
I'm wondering where the pro-lifers are on this. I would expect them to be jumping up and down celebrating. Except for one problem. It's Obama who made the hard call -- and God forbid we give HIM any credit for anything, eh?
Any time you introduce artificial substances into the natural order of the body you are at risk of side effects. One needs to weigh those risks and proceed accordingly.
How many women know the risk of using the pill or other contraceptives, yet utilize them anyway? How many people know the risks of smoking, drinking, and drugs of any kind and indulge anyway? People should be free to make choices with mimimal government interference after they are presented with the current information regarding those choices. We did not start out as sheep but we are surely transforming into them.
As far as Obama goes, do you really think deep down, he really made the decision? Pretty sure it was his handlers telling him it would help his political situation if he looked like he cares. Truth is, he really does not give a whit about anything except getting reelected then leaving the office so he can make mega bucks on the speech and book circuit. That's the reality if you really care to examine it.
It surprised me, honestly.
It was Kathleen Sebelius, head of Health and Human Services who officially took it down, but of course it's Obama reelection motivated.
If one's goal is only to make money with books and tours, then spending 4 or 8 grueling years in the White House doesn't make a lot of practical sense. Others are already reaping the financial benefits of their fame.
Look at Palin. Look at Cain. Look at McCain. Heck. Look at Snooki.
Does 4 more years of being POTUS make Obama more marketable as a speaker/author?
And how much is W making on books and speaking tours?
I don't agree that that is or ever was Obama's motive. Or any president's, really.
Women need to accept the fact that they are the gate keepers of genetic reproduction. If you let a man in, then you need to understand that you're stuck with the present he leaves. (Rape is obviously a different situation)
Life isn't fair and the sexes are not equal.
That being said, freedom is as freedom does. Pills should be available to those who prove they're capable of making important decisions. The decision should be left to those who are able to pay for their own way - i.e., pay for their own home, can pay for their own sustenance (however minimal) - as opposed to "random age #9"
Sorry, I'm not completely following you here.
I understand and agree with paragraphs #1 and #2, although I would suggest that the male can play a role in preventing unwanted pregnancies. It's not all on the woman's shoulders (or other body parts).
Are you saying the Plan B pill (or any birth control pill) should be available to those "who prove they're capable of making important decisions." (?) Is the criteria that you can pay for the pill (which shouldn't be difficult to do?)or that you show you are financially responsible?
Please elaborate. Thanks.
As it now stands, they are saying 17 is the cutoff age for getting Plan B without prescription. Why 17 and not 18 I have no idea. No consistency on what is an 'adult' for voting or serving in the miltary purposes vs. legally drinking alcohol... but I digress.
Of course the man can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Easily. Just use a condom. But the woman shouldn't let the man in without one.
You know me: crazy "legalize everything" man. However, the government shouldn't be paying for it.
Quick question: Where in the constitution is the power to "provide legislation and funding regarding birth control" given to the federal government? Obviously the answer is "no where". In fact, the power to do so is actually prohibited to the Federal government via the 10th amendment. GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT.
The issue, when talking about things that require "adult decisions" becomes "when is someone an adult?". The answer that our government has forced on our society is "18 years after birth".
The statement you make about "consistency" is an important one. It shows that our government is just arbitrarily saying XYZ and not paying attention to any sort of natural law -- the same natural laws that our States were founded on.
This isn't true for everyone, and it shouldn't be held as a standard. It's just completely artificial.
True adulthood begins with self-reliance. Once you don't need your parents' support anymore, you are allowed to do with your body/property as you wish.
If the issue is "do you need a prescription", I'm not at all sure how the drug works, but I would imagine that getting a prescription the day after would be quite impossible.
Condoms break, people are raped, people pass out and are abused while unconscious etc
When these things happen, preventing the egg for releasing to prevent conception is responsible and should be allowed.
It should occur as soon as possible and so requiring a prescription seems an unnecessary barrier given how safe the drug is.
agree with the overruling.
I thought Plan B is ok after 72 hours after sexual intercourse, they can have time for prescription (teens).
If only some people are not resisting the availability of condoms/contraceptives for teens anywhere (in school) etc.
If only sex education is well integrated into primary education
by sandra rinck 9 years ago
FDA and government approved the Morning After Pill to be made available to 17 year olds. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? My thoughts:Condoms are made available to teenagers and even given to them for their own protection. It is useful since you can't stop them from having sex. ...
by Peeples 5 years ago
It bothers me that so many parents are uninformed about basic contraception. Why are so many comparing the morning after pill to an abortion? Do they not understand what the pill is or do they know and just ignore the facts?""This is a thinly-veiled attempt to get an abortion drug...
by Nickny79 9 years ago
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those...
by Amy DeMarco 6 years ago
I take birth control pills for medical reasons. I have PCOS. Without it, my hormones would be imbalanced and I'd be at risk for uterine cancer. There are many women like me. I find it disturbing that those who oppose covering birth control don't know this and equally appalled that those...
by Chris Mills 5 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything...
by dashingscorpio 3 years ago
Why do you believe "unintended pregnancies" are on the rise among 20+ year olds?It's always been touted that more sexual education and better birth control methods would reduce unplanned pregnancies. Just recently Bristol Palin announced she is pregnant again from a man who will be a...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|