E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPlan B will not be sold without a prescription to girls under age 17. NBC's Anne Thompson has more.
Plan B One-Step, the so-called "morning after pill," won't be made available over the counter to girls younger than 17, regardless of a previous Food and Drug Administration recommendation, according to a statement by U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
In a surprise move, Sebelius invoked her authority as the agency's head to overrule the recommendation of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research -- and the conclusions drawn by FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, according to statements issued today.
The move drewswift condemnation from ethicists and leading medical groups.
“In facing a tough call, HHS has put politics over science when it comes to sex,” said Art Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and a frequent contributor to msnbc.com.
Dr. Robert Block, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, called the decision "medically inexplicable," saying that it defies strong data that shows emergency contraception is safe and effective for girls and women of all ages.
But Sebelius said she wasn't convinced that Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. had proven that non-prescription use of emergency contraceptives containing the drug levonorgestrel should be broadened. She expressed concern that girls reaching reproductive maturity at age 11 -- or even younger -- could have access to the medication.
"It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age," her statement said. "If the application were approved, the product would be available, without prescription, for all girls of reproductive age."
Plan B One-Step is a single-dose pill that decreases the chance of pregnancy if taken within three days after unprotected sexual intercourse. It contains higher levels of a hormone found in some types of daily use birth control pills. It was originally approved in July 2009 for use without a prescription for girls and women older than 17 and with a prescription for those younger. Teva Women's Health Inc., the drug's maker, sought to broaden that use in an application submitted in February. Under that plan, it would have been available on store shelves.
Hamburg said she believed CDER's decision to approve wider use was both thoughtful and appropriate for all females of child-bearing age.
"I reviewed and thoughtfully considered the data, clinical information, and analysis provided by CDER, and I agree with the Center that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential," her statement said.
However, Sebeluis' decision trumps Hamburg's view, so the FDA sent a letter today telling Teva that the product would remain a prescription medication for girls and women older than 17, who must show ID to purchase the medication, and that younger girls would require prescriptions and consultation with health care providers.
Teva officials expressed surprise at the last-minute timing of Sebelius' decision.
"We commend the FDA for making the recommendation to approve providing women with increased over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step and we are disappointed that at this late date, the Department of Health and Human Services has come to a different conclusion," Teva spokeswoman Denise Bradley wrote in an e-mail.
The firm had not yet received the FDA's letter for review, Bradley said.
Msnbc.com health writer JoNel Aleccia and freelance health writer Rita Rubin contributed to this report.
What do you think of the decision? Tell us on Facebook. Related story:
Bioethicist: Plan B ruling trump good science with bad policy
Leave a Comment:
Praise the Lord O Jesus, Jesus we definitely need more people on this planet so keep em cummin! LOL
A girl can use simple aspirin for birth control. All she has to do is hold it between her knees during a date. 100% effective.
Since when was aspirin recommended for birth control?
LOL Spartan - read that again closer. It was a joke.
Not a good decision. Teens will have sex, no way around it. Might as well promote safety and reduce the risk of pregnancy. Ignoring facts, doesn't solve anything.
It was stupid to ever consider allowing access to minors for a day after pill. Put it behind the counter therefore proof of legal age can be obtained during purchase.
Would the evangelicals prefer abortion or the day after pill? If they don't like that I guess women can just go back to hangers, back alleys and of course dumpster babies. Choose which you think is the lesser evil and remember that y'all can't have everything without giving choices to others because you will never ever be able to dictate your will pertaining to birth and or the control thereof. That's just the way things are.
Ever since men applied the double standard of behavior.
One set for their daughters and one for any woman they are with as a partner.
Why would they need proof of age to purchase it? Old enough to have sex? Old enough to purchase the equipment and drugs need for sex
"Prohibition" NEVER works!
Politicization of a issue like this is absurd ........... Sex is a natural & normal behavior for humans of all ages ... Educate the young .. teach them that there is more to love & sex than intercourse .. we live in a nation of dysfunctional sexual relationships because of ignorance. A vast majority of mature adults have never experienced the essential ingredients of true "Intimacy" and consequently can't address it with their childern. Ignorance is not the answer ...
Sooooo under this new guideline Emma (who is 14) will ask Dorra (who is nineteen) to buy the pill for her ... case closed ..
What does the ruling solve?
Theo I agree with you but do understand the fact that at this point in time this would be a political bomb shell that would allow NEwt and others to incite the far right more than they have alrready
"A Veteran", has it all together or a throwback to the Victorian age...you decide.
the aspirin between the legs joke is just another example of how we put every, single ounce of responsibility on women. ugh. how about a young man sticks an aspirin up his penis? is the joke still funny then?
That was a JOKE guys, I heard it way back in the 7th or 8th grade, you see the girl holds it between her knees during a date, so she cannot open her legs, get it?????
I got it and LOL! Come on people keep your sense of humor! Now Veteran, come up with a joke to keep those young mens pants up!
Beacuse if there is a group of people who we would not want to prevent a pregnancy in-it is teenage girls!
Not making the morning after pill available will not stop 1 single teenager from having sex. It also will not encourage teens to be more responsible as no one uses the morning after pill instead of birth control due to expense and side effects. What it will stop is teenagers from being able to prevent a pregnancy should something go wrong with the birth control they used.
Which leads to either another teenage mom or an abortion.
Happy right wing?
Okay let me see if I've got this right.
Girls under 17 don't get pregnant because they just say no...like they say no to drugs and that's been sucessful ....hasn't it? And somehow there doesn't seem to be any consequences for the males who get these girls pregnant. We NEVER talk about THEM.
The Republicans don't believe in abortion.
Birth control is finally covered by insurance but with so many out of work many families won't be covered.
Republicans don't want to fund Family Planning where females can get birth control on a sliding fee scale. No one is turned away because of lack of money.
Soooo what? Republicans want to pay for more welfare mothers? Must be! They're against everything that could possibly prevent it.
Friggin welfare Republicans.
That joke was always wrong - its pretty easy to still have sex with your knees tight together. Who ever came up with it must have only been thinking about missionary.
The younger girls are more likely to need this option. Teens make mistakes, they need to be able to recover and learn from them. Kathleen Sebelius is a narrow minded bitch who just made sure that a large number of young teens will forced into parenthood.
If they understand the implications, they will protect themselves beforehand.
Aside from the moral implications of the pill making girls think they're invincible, I don't think they've really had time to study the effects on a growing and developing girl's system. The pill, with repeated use, could screw up their hormones badly. I agree with Sibelius, they have not had time to prove how safe it is. How many prescription drugs have been yanked from the market AFTER killing and maiming people?
Great news for MTV! 16 and Pregnant should continue for many more seasons...
The pill shouldn't be used as a method of regular birth control, but it should be available if the need arises for anyone old enough to conceive.
Lizette, whether you like it or not, it is not the action one is responsible for in which you gripe about. It is the final decision, that only a girl has, to do so. In other words, you have the power in every single sexual scenario as it is a requirement for something to be inserted into YOU, and no one else. It is and has always been the final decision for a female to say they want to have sex, no matter who it is. It is about time the onus of responsibility fell where it belongs, on those making the poor decision to spread their legs. Obviously, men cannot get pregnant, and for the fact that women can, holding them to a higher standard is necessary. She chose the guy, she chose to say yes. Being in love or your emotions are no damn excuse. Provide young women with the need to correct a poor decision... in anonymity.
Next we can tackle the sham that is child support... Women, if you were responsible with your bodies as no one can forcefully (nor legally) insert somethign inside you with out your consent, then the need for child support and it's distruction of families would be gone.
Steven, even if they are smart and use a condom, those can still break and having a pack of plan b around incase something happens will lessen the chance of teen pregnancies.
No one will ever want to use this repeatedly because the affects suck alot. Vomitting and diarrhea and nausea are not uncommon side effects - but better to feel like crap for 3-4 days than feel like @!$%# for 9 months and then regretful for 18 years and 9 months.
Many states will allow teens to have an abortion without parental consent, but not these pills? Talk about a double standard! I would think this would be a much preferable method of birth control than abortion would be.
Seiously. Not letting this drug be sold over the counter completely defeats the whole @!$%#ing purpose.
It will be very easy to get an older girl to ask for the pill at the counter. Back when I was a younger teen, I was too embarrassed to buy condoms so I would get an older braver kid to buy them. I was also very successful in getting adults to get alcohol while waiting outside a liquor store.
Finally, it is very easy to have sex if a girl is holding a pill between her knees. You just Hit It from the back.
KingJust, I hope you're just trolling, because your ignorance is breathtaking.
Oh, heaven forfend that those incorruptible FDA wizards and whoever's lobbying them would engage in anything as immoral as promoting birth control.
More right-wing Christian sleazebag corporate manipulation, to ensure that there will always be an underclass of the poor -- deprived of education, opportunity, or anything that makes them question the authority of their overlords.
And Veteran, your joke? It's older than rocks, and to tell you the truth, it's not funny. You want all these inexperienced young girls to have babies? OK, then! You and your boys stop giggling like a bunch of preschoolers, man up, and support all the kids who are also theirs. Stop bitching about the welfare system. When it comes to procreation, it takes two to tango, girly-man.
Precisely the problem. Most teens do not truly understand the risk until it is too late. That's why even in the face of pregnancy and STDs so many continue to do it. Sex is not an act of logic, its an act of emotion, feeling and hormones. No amount of education will change that.
Well we reap what we sow. We are not very good teachers because we were belligerent students. We didn't learn the lesson ourselves. The evilgilicals are to busy chasing the almighty dollar trying to impress themselves and others of their ilk. There is no time for the family that they started. One thing leads to another and the parents split (not by till death do us part). Now the child is left to somewhat fend for themselves. They make their own decisions. Some right some wrong and some just in spite. Children raising children. Nobody remembers the lesson. Hate, ignorance, intolerance, etc..... All part of the world created by humans because we started ignoring the lesson. the evilgilicals (religious right?) perverted the religion of peace, hope, and love and turn the youth away. So we rear what we sow.
Yeah, force the young teens to have unwanted babies... now that's the answer!!!
I'm really sick and tired of the religious zealots injecting their own warped morality on everyone else. The only reason they want to tell us what to do is because their own morals are so horrendous.
Get out of people's bedrooms you crazy Jesus-nuts! Stay out of our bedrooms Federal Government!
I don't know WHY Selibus made this decision, but she is NOT a "right wing" anything - she's a Democrat appointed by Obama. Maybe you should take it up with HIM!!!
And I'd like to ask a question - do you REALLY think a 13-year-old is going to ride her bike to the pharmacy & buy this morning-after pill with her allowance??? No, of course not. Selibus didn't say 13-year-olds CAN'T get the MA pill; the ruling is the 13-year-old has to get a prescription, which means she's got to tell her parents, which is what she SHOULD do in the first place! Only other option is the school nurse, and oh boy, wouldn't THAT start a $#!t-storm!
Apparently, Sebelius is a Roman Catholic. And considers her religion's position to be more important than state's rights. This pill should be available to any girl who is legally old enough to consent to have sex.
"They're against everything that could possibly prevent it."...hahaha
that's some dumbazz thinking....Rico...I don't care if your daughter gets pregnant at any age ...but I do resent the fact that the you think I should pay for her birth control OR her welfare to raise the kid...and yes , the young men involved should be held accountable...your drivle is tired , played , and crusty
To Spartan-501 - Wow - ask them to take you out off the gene pool, please!
@sonofmolly; legal age of consent varies by state from 16-18 years old. So yes, setting the legal limit to get the pill OTC at 17 seems fair.
moonbeamracer -- you seem to be the ONLY one who got the obvious -- If you're under 17, you get your friend to buy it for you (or the boyfriend, I notice no one says whether a GUY can buy it or not LOL).
This didn't solve a thing or change a thing. Just like anything else a teen wants, age limit or not, the teen will get.
Or are you people living in some dream world?
Harry Blank
"They're against everything that could possibly prevent it."...hahaha
Resent it all you want but that's the way it is. That's called REALITY a place in time Repugs just don't seem to grasp. They also don't seem to be able to deal in SOLUTIONS hence their ongoing rhetoric of doom and gloom. I don't want to live in your world Harry....it's too regressive and hateful.
Well here comes the blackmarket for Plan B... I'd rather have an education program set up for girls/ women who use the pill a lot. But in all honestly, I'd rather have young girls getting Plan B than going through the pain of birth and raising a child when she herself is a child or even if she decides to abort, there will still be an emotional toll (I am pro choice, it's her choice not mine). Although I will say I think even the emotional toll of going up to the pharmacist to ask for it has got to be emotional too. I just wish our company was more about sexual education than just don't do it because we don't wanna talk about it.
I, for one, am glad this didn't come to pass. When my daughter is 18, she can legally do what she wants with her life. Until that time, I have a say in what she can and can't do/have. I don't want the government stripping away my right to parent her the way I am legally entitled to.
Also, I keep an open line of communication with her, have shared my views on sex, pregnancy and abortion as well as the views I don't believe in. For now, she agrees with me. As she gets older, her views may change, but she knows she can come to me and discuss it anytime. By allowing me to parent her, not the government, I am instilling my values and beliefs in her which she can then take or leave as she learns more about her world. That is what a parent SHOULD do. Nothing comes with guarantees, but I have given her a foundation from which she can build upon in her way in her time.
I was a horny teenage girl once. I know what happens. I am not naive. I am a parent and am doing what I am supposed to be doing....parenting my child, my way, giving her a path she can choose to follow or not.
The HHS decides not to sell Plan B over-the-counter, and are making it available to those 17 or older, so clearly they are promoting teen pregnancy. My daughter is 16 and most of her friends are already sexually active and have been for years. The way around this, is for the parents to buy the Plan B pill for their daughters and give it to them in advance. This is not a permission slip to say 'go forth, and have sex'. It is about being realistic about teens having sex before marriage. Most of us have done it. I am a conservative and Christian; if my child came to me today and told me she was pregnant I would be supportive of every option available to her...including abortion. A child may be physically capable of having sex and babies but mentally they are not prepared for either.
You're "legally entitled" to prevent her from having sex in the first place. Think you can? Besides, if she was willing to "come to you" with anything, why is this a concern? Because you think she WOULDN'T if she needed it?
It doesn't matter though, I'm sure she has a friend or two over 17 to buy it if needed.
At 17 she can legally get the pill hate to break it to you. So you feel parents have the legal right to force their daughter to give birth or have an abortion?
Thanks for proving our point. Parent who WANT to parent and WILL parent have not a thing to worry about from the government is they are doing their parenting correctly. The government just steps in to educate those who aren't lucky enough to have parents who are properly parenting. If you are doing your parenting correctly there will be no need for your child to turn to the government.
Oh and my parents thought I totally agreed with them too, little did they know I was only agreeing to get them off my back. They thought I believed in waiting until marriage and held my virginity sacred and that I wanted nothing to do with sex. Little did they know I haven't been a virgin since 13 and I got all my education on sex and doing it safely from other sources. I also never agreed with them on abortion and they warned me if I get pregnant I will have the kid and I completely let them believe I agreed with them. Well after that I took matters into my own hands and researched how to circumvent the parental consent laws in case that should ever happen. All the while they thought I was an innocent little angel who would never ever consider abortion
Once again scientific and evidence-based decisions are overruled by political ideology and opinion. Brilliant.
As for the "joke" in the first reply....when the importance of a topic such as this is lowered to a mere joke, it provides more ammo to those who make nonsense decisions.
out of all the girls I knew in high school and college, the girls who hooked up with the guys who were popular and had sex with a lot of girls - which made then feel special- were either dumped or the two who became pregnat and the guy still dumping them, finding out they were not so special. The one who had her kid and one who had an abortion found their choices in life were limited either because of their choice to keep the baby or the guilt because of the loss of self-esteem they felt for killing their baby.
I hope the judge and all the conservative kooks pay for all these unwanted kids!
Don't you think 7 billion on this planet is enough?
What judge?
Hum, a quick check on the internet informs me she's Democrat too.
Being a Democrat doesn't mean your views have to be exactly the same as everyone else's. It's possible that she votes Democrat because she likes their economic policies.
Um... not available over the counter =/= not available!
Spartan: She not only votes democrat. She is a member of the Obama administration. One would think that she agreed with the president on most issues or she wouldn't have been appointed to her position.
Sparton: You can not explain to a Fauxter that Dems don't follow the leader (like all the Repubs/teabaggers do) they don't understand "thinking for oneself"
mark your statement is the same for weed and all other illegal drugs
usless
Jo-an: Actually, Republicans think very clearly. It's Democrats like you who like to group us all together. My point is, what's the difference when Republicans do it to you? Can you not take the same criticism?
Jon Huntsman was appointed by Obama as ambassador to China. He's a Republican and he's trying to run for president this time round.
My point is that Obama doesn't always appoint those who follow his views. And even if Sebelius does, it wouldn't change the fact that she's socially conservative. If Obama has the exact same views, it only makes him more socially conservative than we thought.
I sometimes wonder if they realize that these type of decisions simply underscore the peoples scorn for government. This knuckling under to the right wing conservatives is going too far.
Actually it is the bowing to the liberal side that has got this country into debt. My only surprise is that this time they actually have common sense.
Who started the Iraq War and refused to pull out?
I have no problem with women over 17 getting it at will and younger girls needing a prescription. This would involve family members consent which would require (gasp) talking to each other.
It's not like it's been made illegal or completely unavailable.
Like raising a child, you need to know what battles to fight and when to walk away. It's still available and that is a win for both sides.
Unhappy: I must disagree! Just take a good look at this House of Congress! It's like they ALL have their arms locked together!
And of course now someone will say "well you guys had control of BOTH house and senate" blah, blah, blah...PROVING my point!
You are aware that Kathleen Sebelius is a democrat, right Craig? So quick to point the finger at republicans, so blissfully ignorant of the facts.
And JoAn:
"You can not explain to a Fauxter that Dems don't follow the leader (like all the Repubs/teabaggers do) they don't understand "thinking for oneself""
Really? The Tea Party folks have been in opposition to the establishment GoP since their formation. Yet another example of someone not really versed on political current-events.
Craig...glad you are wishing to place the births of unwanted kids onto the heads of Conservative Kooks instead of considering basic common sense. I suppose we can lay the deaths of young girls who were counter indicated to use this medication or had a reaction from it at the feet of Progressive's and Liberal's or maybe just you.
my reference...
http://www.medbroadcast.com/drug_info_details.asp?brand_name_id=4513#ContraIndications
All medications come with side effects....these are things that can happen to people when they take a drug... if these happen and you do have to be seen by a care giver it is best to tell the care giver what you have ingested that could cause a side effect an appropriate treatment can be sought...sure glad that so many 11-16 year olds will understand the premise of this logic and be honest (sarcasm intended). If they don't say they could actually receive the wrong treatment causing them more issue...
How many kids under the age of say 16 know all of the things they are allergic to?
How may kids on medication do you honestly think know that the prescription medication (antidepressants) they take is an MAO inhibitor?
Unhappy, that is not necessarily true. On one hand, you complain about the debt in this country and Republicans place most of the blame on liberal entitlement programs... like welfare. On the other hand, you work very VERY hard to eliminate birth control and abortion, increasing the welfare population.
So you are against welfare, and believe that paying for these people has put us in debt... yet you actively strive to increase the welfare population with legislation that will result in higher procreation in this population.
Please explain how increasing the population of a segment you want to decrease and spend less on, is considered "clear thinking"? Your social agenda completely contradicts your economic agenda... how is that "clear thinking"?
txmom, what to know what else can have side effects, child birth and abortion..its called death. So perhaps the morning after pill is far safer.
slightlyold....and they study's you have read to support your statement the relatively new drug is far safer than child birth or abortion? This isn't a pro-life or anti-abortion issue....
But truly that wasn't my point....the point is exposing an DRUG with side effects and contradictions to a market that will not read or cannot be held accountable for the information. To deny a primary care giver the ability and knowledge to know what drugs are going into a minor child's body without foreknowledge. If my daughter were to have many of the side effects on that list and I was not aware of them I could easily miss something important on her behalf and not seek appropriate or informed care.
Oh, for heaven's sake, tx, you'd have to try pretty hard to find something more dangerous than early teen childbirth or abortion.
Unhappy---as has been said for many many years democrats are tax and spend---meaning they increase revenues to pay for the spending this is different than republicans because republicans are tax cut and spend--meaning they decrease revenue and still spend---which is the reason this country is so in debt.
funniest thing i ever read, from spartan, "Being a Democrat doesn't mean your views have to be exactly the same as everyone else's. It's possible that she votes Democrat because she likes their economic policies."
haha, no dem cares about economics, all libs are tied to their hypocritically ideology not finances, dems want free money and to tell everyone how to live and what to care about.
Cassandra....I am sure there are many things more dangerous than early teen pregnancy or abortion in circa 2011...one would be not reading or understanding the directions to a medication.
Would you give a 14 year old kid a bottle of Gin and tell them to read the directions? I'm thinking you are going to at the very least be cleaning up some vomit if they are not supervised. Worst case driving them to the ER for alcohol poisoning.
You would believe that some young teen is going to only take this medication as directed, reading the side effects, reading the contradictions and taking as directed instead of in place of birth control or often...
I totally agree with Txmom. Young girls should definitely be seeing a medical provider if they are having sex for more than just a morning after pill even! What about STDs? There are some VERY serious consequences to not getting checked out regularly. And like the article said, it's not that they can't get it, it just has to go through a medical professional which is exactly who I would want to talk to about a medication with so many side effects. Plus as others have said we don't know how dangerous all these hormones are to still developing girls. I do agree that pregnancy can be much worse, but why take unnecessary risks with this medicine when they can still get it. I work in a county health dept in the South and Birth control of ALL kinds are free to anyone who wants them and if you're over 14 we can't even allow parents in the room for pt interviews/exams, so young girls who have any inclination of responsibility can easily get birth control and be in full control of their reproductive health.
KP, you lost the attention of all the libs that only see this as a republicans are evil issue when you said consequences. Lib hate the lidea of consequences, they want everyone(themselves) to be able to freely do everything they want with zero thought of consequences. Consequences and accountability are 4 letter words to libs.
txmom32 and KP-4001715 can either of you honestly tell me that neither of you broke ANY rules as a teenager? The reason that we smoke, drink, have sex, and do drugs is because we learn from those who are above us (our parents, rolemodels, etc..) and the media. Turn on the television and see how long it takes for you to a commercial with some beautiful woman/handsome man to be in some kind of sexually charged situation. Then imagine seeing that for ALL of your life and simultaneously being told that you can't take part in it while watching/knowing your parents and everybody else does it. Regardless of what education occurs teens will always have sex and the only thing you can do about it is provide the items necessary to make it as safe and easily made safe as possible.
redgirraffe...of course I broke rules as a teenager but this is not about breaking rules, teen sex or abortion...it is about giving young girls aged 11-17 the access to self medicate with a drug that affects their reproductive system. Expecting them to fully understanding the repercussions of that and trusting them to have the maturity to use the substance for it's intended purpose and be able to deal with any adverse reactions they may have.
Smoking, drinking, having sex and doing drugs aside...all can have their own adverse affects on reproductive health....These are also all adult consent issues...being that an adult is legally responsible to deal with the repercussions of their own decisions and actions. Again, this article isn't about media making us horny or pre-teens or teens having sex.
It is about reproductive health and reasonableness in making the best case choice for your situation, in the case of a minor their physical health is their parent or guardian's responsibility and that responsibility includes making sure that their children receive appropriate and informed medical care when necessary. It is also not about education as education seemed to play no part in the proposition to make this medicine available to very young women and girls.
What I find very interesting is that above...2.15 I provided the precautions printed on the medication pamphlet and someone actually collapsed what is legally required data in the information on a medication that many on here should be available to children...many with the argument that these children who need this med will be mature enough to read the data sheet and yet you will hide necessary information on a chat board...would you same people spike your daughters orange juice with this med and just not tell her? Obviously, informed isn't really a priority for those who would collapse this from view....but then I suppose you would be first in line for the class action if your child were damaged by use of this med, even if it were by your hand.
Indie and crew
YOU pay for your daughters need to bed down and get pregnant , YOU pay for your daughters birth control so she can bed down with the football team , YOU pay for the well being of your daughter as you are OK with her bedding down at age 15...that's what YOU should do , YOU do it, I shouldn't have to cough up a penny for it , for paying for the abortion or upbringing of the child and/or locked up...YOU pay for their abortions , YOU should be required BY LAW to provide for it and if YOUR daughter gets pregnant under the age of say , 18 and she needs help and YOU don't provide it YOU should be held responsible for neglect of a dependent...it's not my problem
Harry? What language are you speaking?
txmom32
liberals don't care about "reproductive health" issues , that is what Obama Care is for...they are only concerned with "choice" as defined by THEIR agenda
TXMom
You mean kinda like the vacination Rick Perry was trying to FORCE on EVERY young girl in Texas? And that was somehow okay with you?? No one is forcing anyone in this situation.
See that's what we mean....Repugs just don't think.
I am shocked at the response of the adults here who truly belive that this agegroup thinks as responsible as you seem to.First it shouldnt be with the condoms because it is a DRUG. It reminds me of how a wonderful drug call actifed was decided to be the core drug for chrystal meth by our teens.As to reactions my son who is now 33 had to visit the doc three times before we figured out that he was allergic to nonoxadol in condoms. They are not that sophisticated yet. Because it is a drug it should be behind the counter.The younglady who is really serious about not becoming pregnant will find a way to get it as the law now stands.This was a responsible adult decision.Someone (like a doctor)should know when person is taking a powerful drug in event something happen proper measure can be taken
rico....It is actually nothing like that but the Guardia issue is one of about three policy reasons I will not support Rick Perry for President.
FYI the point was not to technically "force" the drug on anyone...all parents in the state of Texas can refuse to vaccinate their children for a number of reasons. The point was to make the vaccine free particularly for children who's parents are under privileged...after all just because someone is poor does not mean they don't deserve basic health dignity...(although I do think there was some under the table dealing with the company that provided the vaccine)...so that those girls and ultimately boys...who's parent could not afford the vaccination could have access to it at the same level as those with insurance... I find it interesting that any progressive would fault Perry for that....
Personally,I think there are much better ways of going about getting free vaccinations for underprivileged children than a general mandate.
Of course you went completely off topic and your premise in no way reconciled with my statement...
I stand by what I said...it is nuts to place a drug in the hands of children with no supervision....One of the specific details, that a 11-17 year old may discount on the box is....are you pregnant...this drug is not an abortion drug it is a post coital pregnancy prevention...I have no problem with the drug or the use of the drug by an adult....If a parent chooses to supervise their child using this drug it is their business...the parent or guardian is the person legally responsible for the health and well being of a minor child. If a child comes up with symptoms three weeks down the road then the parent is responsible and needs to be able to seek informed and reasonable medical care for their children. The Parent needs to know what the child has taken.
After this conversation I am more convinced than ever that progressives truly care less about life or quality of life than they care about getting their way even if their way is just dangerous.
It is a SAFE drug, I can't find any fatalities related to it nor anything more severe than an upset stomach as a consequence of overdose. Scientist and doctors in the FDA approved for it to be sold with condoms. My mom is allergic to latex and some people have unpleasant reactions to spermicide but that's still no reason to take it off the shelves.
LMAO you do realize if that were true then there would be no teens with unwanted pregnancies.
The big problem with waiting until you talk to a doctor is that it begins to lose effectiveness the longer you wait. If it were over the counter they could get it right away for the best chance of it doing job it was intended to do
After this conversation I am more convinced than ever that some people truly care less about life or quality of life than they care about getting their way and controlling their kids sexual activity.
Spartan wrote:
Who needs Plan B if we "pull out"?
She better have a good scientific or medical reason for this!
Or what? You'll pray against her? You sure can't vote against a God-der like her. She's on a mission and democracy is less than nothing to her kind. They only obey the highest authority known to them, their ego.
It is so people like you dont use it as a means of birth control, insted of condoms or other means
Or else she is putting peoples reproductive rights and health behind her own personal feelings.
It is not entirely comparable to birth control, it's emergency contraceptive and is more expensive than condoms or the pill so I hardly see anyone using it as their primary means for birth control
lana and rob both of you didn't get it the secetary made her decision baised on politics and nothing else
Oh no trust me, I totally get that this is based on politics and nothing else which is why I called for the medical or scientific reasoning behind her decision.
Here we go, lay down your bets. HHS and its appointed Secretary,( by Obama), Kathy Sebelius ( Kathy is a career politician and a Roman Catholic, weight unknown, age @ 60 something) HHS slogan is; " Our goal is for all Americans to live healthier, more prosperous and more productive lives." The word is "productive," not "reproductive."
will duke-it-out with Dr. Maggie Hamburg head of the FDA ( an MD, age mid-fifties, weight unknown) on Penn Ave. The winner gets the pill.
My money is on Hamburg. The way it is now structured is that the FDA is a mere agency of HHS. So, Hamburg has to answer to Sebelius. I think Hamburg will KO her in the 5th round.
So what if I do? Why is your business the type of birth control I use...
I dont think many people use it as a means of birth control... Its pretty expensive. My friend has used it twice. 50$ both times. She borrowed money from me the 2nd time because the condom broke (1st time she forgot her pill and wanted to make sure she was protected)
Most people that use it have other means of birth control that are much cheaper.
However, if someone did want to take it as their form of birth control, what right do you have to stop them? Why does it matter to you what birth control they use? How does it even affect you?
If you read the letter she wrote to the FDA, she states the reason is because the FDA has not tested Plan B on girls as young as 11, so it should not be available to them without a doctor's prescription. Was I the only one that saw that part?
to clarify, here is the link to that letter, since it suddenly disappeared from the article: whether you believe it or not is another story.
wouldn't let me link? well, anyway, there's your good scientific reason. They haven't tested it on 11 year olds so that's why it isn't available to one without an Rx. Seems simple enough to me.
LanaD....
How about good old fashion common sense...a child who is going to have unprotected sex, even though they know their parents would not approve will probably also gladly take a magic pill that will make any admission to the behavior go away. It is doubtful that a child is going to read the warnings or side effects on the packing to know if it is safe for them or what they should watch for and seek medical help for if a side effects occurs.
Is that the sort of "Scientific" or "Medical" reason you are looking for?
dpac, 11 is not 17. Very few 10 year olds are having sex, and very few are even capable of getting pregnant at that age. I think most people would be ok requiring a prescription if the girl is 10.
The issue is that teens age 13-17 are unable to get access to this drug.
No, it's bullsh!t. In high school I knew plenty of people having sex, and most were very cautious. If they missed a single pill the girls would freak out for weeks until their period came. It was common knowledge that the morning-after pill was hell (even I knew, and I was a guy who didn't have sex until senior year). Girls talked, and the average teenager is much smarter than you think.
EngEsq....
Exactly what does your point have to do with the reasoning I gave to respond to the part of my message that you pulled? If comprehension is an issue here is the meat of the remark...
Yes I cleaned up the glaring grammar....
Most girls taking birth control have been told what the various side effects are from the health care provider who prescribed the pill....believe it or not only one side effect of the pill is pregnancy if you don't take the pill and have unprotected sex...there are several others...
dpac, thanks for pointing that out. When I first read the article I did not see her reason. I can agree with the 11 year old thing which I imagine is extremely rare to begin with but my concern is for the 13-17 range. Maybe make it only available OTC for girls over 13 instead of 17.
txmom: No, that doesn't count as "scientific" by any means. As long as the side effects and warnings are clearly listed I see no problem. I'm sure if a girl starts not feeling right after taking any kind of medication they would check the box. The information is there
LanaD...
I'm glad that you are sure cause I have a 15 year old that won't even read the box to make brownies. So glad to know that 13-17 year olds in your part of the world are self-sufficient and capable to seek medical care on their own if they have a problem....(sarcasm)
The majority of girls have the common sense to look at the box when there's a problem, i assure you, esspecially of that magnitude.
Yeah because making brownies and feeling side effects from a drug you took are totally comparable /s
If they are self sufficient enough to get the morning after pill they have already proven they are capable to seek medical care (the morning after pill) on their own due to a problem (possible pregnancy).
LanaD...you seriously see no problem with children 11-17 self-medicating, with a relatively new drug, without adult/medical supervision or information?
I seriously see no problem with children age 13-17 self medicating/controlling their reproductive rights, with a drug that has been proven effective as emergency contraceptive, without adult/medical supervision. The information comes with the drug
LanaD....would you actually bet your child's reproductive health on that statement? I wouldn't...I wouldn't risk her ability to carry a healthy pregnancy or to become a mother for anything....It is the greatest time in life. It should not be entered into lightly. It should not be forced on anyone. It should not be unnecessarily placed at risk and certainly not from self-medicating....
Yet you use the word 'children' and not 'young women'. Because emotionally that is what they still are. Personally, I don't see the harm in requiring them to get a prescription and some kind of counseling. Might save them a lot of heartache down the road. At the very least they are going to have to get cooperation from an older girl who may have some wisdom to impart. I don't see any problem with that either, in fact, I'll bet that older girl will have plenty to say about it.
Txmom, most girls know the normal side effects of the progesterone-only pill (nausia, stomach upset, constipation, chills, etc.) If unusual side effects occur (or they are overly extreme) most teens will go to a doctor. Again, you diminish the capabilities of teens.
Further, this drug, while unpleasant on the system, has fewer complications than most over the counter drugs (like advil and asprin). It has been used since 1973, and have not been associated with chronic medical risks.
txmom, you may think this is a relatively new drug, but it's not - it is basically the same thing as the "morning after" pill regimen that existed in the late 80s (2 birth control pills followed by 2 more taken 12 hours later). That means people have been doing this for decades, you just didn't know it.
Took the words out of my mouth EngEsq. I have been looking and can't find a single death caused by plan b. And everything I have found so far has even said an overdose would not be fatal and would just result in severe stomach upset
Hey LanaD, where is it written that people have reproductive rights???? That is exactly the problem, some think they do have that right and should be eliminated from the gene pool, period, for very good reasons. Read some of the comments and you will get my drift.
any woman or girl child that gets pregnant is responsible for her own actions , along with the idiot that layed down with her...it's not my problem and I have 0 responsibility to paying for it..yet I am forced to...what about my "choice"?...interesting
\ymara....there are actually three different drugs that I found that will prevent pregnancy after intercourse. The accomplish the same goal with one dose. None have been tested on children who are developing. All come with a warning "Not to use if Pregnant". So how is a 11-17 year old going to know if they are or are not pregnant at the time of ingesting the drug? Are we to trust that children 11-17 will not use this as their only means of birth control even though it states in the pamphlet to not use more than once until they have had a complete cycle? I don't give kids that much credit and yet it would be devastating to find any lasting ill effects from the lack of judgement of an 11-17 year old child.
gdvegas....I an not arguing reproductive rights....I am arguing reproductive health and the irrationality of allowing children 11-17 to self-medicate.
If your 15yr old wont read a box to make brownies, do you think she will suddenly do when she magically turns 18?
Also, there are very few side effects for the pill, and none are really serious.
Nausea, vomitting, diarrhea, delayed, early, and/or heavy period.
They haven't been "tested" on underage teenagers, BUT that doesnt mean that they haven't been used, with no major side effects on those teenagers for decades. It just hasn't been officially tested.
How would an 18yr old know if they are or are not pregnant? Im assuming its the same way any women of any age would know... If a teenager is smart enough to request plan b after unprotected sex (broken condom?, missed a pill? rape?) Then she is probably smart enough to know how to tell when she is pregnant. Of course, in early pregnancy, you cant always tell, but that goes for any women no matter what age.
I doubt that a teenager will use this as their only means of birth control mostly because it is quite expensive. My friend paid 50$ for 1 pill. Most teenagers dont have 100$s of dollars to spare so they can use plan b regularly. Also, whats going to keep some 25yr old woman from using it more than once in a cycle? Its not just teens that use this drug.
I do give teens that much credit because most of the teens that would use this drug, are a little smarter(when it comes to sexual health, usually because of better education) than the ones that use no BC at all (the ones that have parents who shelter them until they turn 18, thinking that magically, they will now know everything they need to know, to live in the real world, including about birth control, STD's, condoms, periods, where babies come from, etc...)
This is complete bs. Regardless of age, this should be available without a prescription. The entire point is to keep doctors and parents out of the life altering decision of keeping or terminating a possible pregnancy. This needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Why shouldn't parents be involved in caring for their own children?
In this particular case, parents would complicate things tenfold. This isn't a matter of which college you want to go to or anything else that's likely to generate reasoned discussion. What we get here is likely a powerful emotional response that may result in birth or even violence.
Parents are involved. They don't get the final say on something like this, however. If you don't want the kid and your parents won't let you get an abortion, you know where they sleep ;)
Parents are responsible for their children up until age 18. A child shouldn't make an important decision like this and their parents should be aware. At 18, do as they want. Before then it's the parents responsibility not the government. If the children don't like it, then the children should be more responsible in their behavior and decision making. If they make a bad decision, why would you let them make another bad decision to clean up the mess which they may or may not regret the rest of their lives. At 18, abort as many babies as you want.
"If they make a bad decision, why would you let them make another bad decision to clean up the mess"....because this is part of becoming and being an adult...dealing with one's own problems. By your logic, the day before someone's 18th birthday she is incapable of making this decision, but 24 hours later she is. That's not how it works.
If they make a bad decision, they're likely to learn from it, at least to a limited extent. Cleaning up the mess can't possibly be a bad decision.
Besides, what if the girl is threatened with grievous bodily harm by her parents? Should she still require a prescription?
What happens when it's a parent sexually abusing a kid?
Actually Gritnix, that is how it works. A 17year old ( day before) has very few rights and is still protected under the law as a minor. The next day, that same kid has all the full rights of an adult and also all the responsibilities to go with it.
So then I take it you are completely in favor a parent being able to force their minor to carry to term and give birth OR force their minor to have an abortion since you feel they control their childs reproductive rights until age 18.
A parent should never be able to control their childs reproductive rights. Period. Sorry but I don't agree with people only being able to gain reproductive rights once they turn 18 even though they are capable of reproduction well before
Actually, almost all teens receive reproductive rights under 18 years old. Consent for having sex ranges from 12-17, with 16 being average. If your old enough to have sex, your old enough to make the decision of terminating a pregnancy. Again, this is NOT a parents or a governments decision to make.
Gritnix, it's real simple, if they want to make their own decisions and live under their own roof, then they can get emancipated. You can't make a parent responsible for their kids if you take away all of the parental rights. The kids free to do as they please when they are responsible enough to do as they please and emancipated. And the person who said something about a parent sexually abusing the kid, the kid should go to the police immediately, not to the morning after pill store. The kid and the new mom or new legal guardian can figure out the rest from there. Great ideas though on the situations that can occur, there are alot of different ones. How about if a teacher sexually molests a kid and the kid gets the morning after pill and doesn't tell the parents or the police. If they didn't have access to that, the parents would find out what's going on quickly and get the authorities involved. There's alot of situations and alot of challenges in life.
Kids aren't allowed to buy cigarettes, but that doesn't seem to stop the hundreds I see smoking them. They just get someone older to buy them. The same thing will happen with this pill. Do you really think a 16 y.o. girl is going to continue an unwanted pregnancy or tell her parents just because they turn her away at the drugstore?
Conservatives blow my mind - they're against abortion but pro death penalty, all for prayer in school unless its non christian. The party which screams about constitution rights and keeping government out of our lives sure loves to restrict the rights of others.
Shawn: You are aware that Sebelius is a member of the Obama administration, right?
Shawn - she's a Democrat.
Doesn't change the fact that she's a NUTCASE. Here's living proof that you can get a socially conservative Democrat. Economic policy has nothing to do with social policy, after all.
Why is she a nutcase? Because she goes against SCIENCE.
But, as in other cases, this is probably one of those "appease the right wing nut cakes" actions that the Obama administration does too often. She may not be a conservative, but she is pandering to them.
Spartan - just a side note, being a scientist, I see many mistakes in SCIENCE too. You're a fool if you make anything (science, religion) a holy grail. It's all skewed in some way. That's what common sense is for.
I happen to be a scientist too. Science is by definition NOT a holy grail of any sort, but when there's a conflict between religion and science, it should always be science that comes first. After all, one is based on reasoning and the other isn't.
Why should science be the one that comes first? Science has always been the result of trial and error and yet you would give it first priority? To me, it sounds to be more at fault than of the two.
You answered your own question, science comes first because it is TRIAL, religion is only error or dogma. If something can never be wrong by belief, then it shouldn't ever have the chance of dictating policy, fallibility is the KEY to good decision making.
Oh and it isn't a made up superstition with no foundation in reality like religion.
What world do you people who want teens to ask their parents first live in?
NO teenage girl is going to ask her parents if she can take the morning after pill. The result? She may get pregnant. The result? Teenage mom or abortion.
Isn't the morning after pill the better option? Of course, the best option is for teens to not have sex-but no decision about the morning after pill is going to have any effect on that.
When something's established as part of science, it's been through repeated trials, none of which contradicts the results. So it's almost 100% certain that it's correct.
Religion, on the other thand, is usually based on an ancient book that tells extremely far-fetched stories. Would you believe it if someone told you that God speaks to them? If someone is able to perform what looks like a miracle (e.g. David Copperfield), would you immediately start worshipping them?
Gotta love how "SCIENCE" is always invoked by people who essentially want their opinion to appear as fact, end of conversation. Aside from the fact that "SCIENCE" can be incorrect and occasionally fraudulent (more often, perhaps, when billions in pharma revenues are on the line), I fail to see how SCIENCE objectively informs us here on whether an 11 year-old girl should be able to buy a contraceptive without the awareness of her parents.
Science can explain to us what the drug does, but it absolutely does not answer the social/ethical question of how it should be made available, and it never will.
uchusky99: Now you are asking for people to be reasonable, I don't think this forum is the place for that!
What blow MY mind Sean, is that Liberals are FOR the murdering of an innocent unborn child, but AGAINST executing an adult who raped and killed a woman and was found guilty in a court of law! This show's without a doubt that Liberalism IS A MENTAL DISORDER!
I'm a liberal and while I believe in leniency and correction for minor criminals, for the truly evil any hint of mercy is an insult to the victims. For the absolutely worst scum out there, I recommend messy and extremely painful executions.
Neither of which the government is doing, of course. Those who commit minor crimes are frequently locked up with violent psychopaths, ruining any hope of them reintegrating with society.
@Madmac621
It appears you have a mental disorder.
@commonsense45
Thank you for your comment; my thoughts exactly. This is an ethical question - the issue is not over the safety or efficacy of the morning after pill. Kids under the age of 18 need parental consent for so many things...when I was in high school, I needed a note signed by my parents stating it was ok with them to cover certain material in class/watch clips of certain movies (and yes, this was public school, less than 10 years ago)...why should it be any different in this case for a child to buy this over the counter? As a pharmacist, I believe it to be irresponsible. I am no fan of Kathleen Sebelius, but believe she made the right decision in this instance.
So if you're 17, you need a prescription for the morning after pill, but you can get an abortion without parental permission? (or at least you can where I live) That doesn't make sense regardless of which side of the abortion issue you're on.
Maybe it is a wise thing. The young already have a drug problem in this country. Do you not think it is possible that people might become addicted to this too?
Its cheaper to get high everyday than it is to take this pill everyday...
Really, Unhappy? Really? Addicted to the morning after pill? LOL
I personally feel parental permission should be required for both. Our society's very worrisome current trend seems to be forcibly cutting parents out of their own children's lives ("they're gonna do x anyway"), then collectively lamenting the myriad bad decisions children go make on their own with increasing frequency and magnitude when they lack parental guidance.
Common
Just stating it doesn't make it any less true, If kids want to do it they can. It should not be up to the parents to choose to carry the baby to term or abort it, that should be left up to the individual pregnant. Parents can threaten to beat or disown kids who do so and this shouldn't be allowed to be the case.
common: I feel parents should give the proper parental guidance to their children in regards to sexual activity not just be like "oh they are going to do it anyway so just let them go into it blind".
Parents are cutting themselves out of their own childrens lives by not wanting to properly educate the kids on a subject they find uncomfortable to discuss or they try to guilt, shame, punish, etc to stop the kid from having sex in the first place so when the kid does end up giving into their natural urges they wouldn't dream of telling their parents.
No ones fault but the parents and the kids should have to suffer because of it!
Assorted-
Your argument seems to be that children are entitled to make all lifestyle decisions for themselves, i.e. parents have no right to supervise (aka "parent") them. I disagree. There are plenty of choices children are too immature to make wisely and may live to regret later. How to handle a pregnancy is certainly one of them IMHO. Even if the parent does let the child decide ultimately, the HHS decision on Plan B means they'll at least be aware that there's a problem which needs to be discussed. I think parents are entitled to that.
"Parents can threaten to beat or disown kids"
This is pure speculation... plus, parents can do this over anything (e.g. bad grades, homosexuality). It's really not justification for cutting ALL parents out of involvement in an important decision. And if a parent is actually *beating* their kid, that's illegal regardless of why.
LanaD - Certainly *some* parents neglect their duty in this sense, but far from ALL. As a parent myself I do plan to have "the talk" with mine, and I *certainly* would like to be aware if they're using emergency contraceptives / having unprotected sex.
Bottom line: It's not fair to assume parents are not doing their jobs and hand control over to the children (or the government).
So then you are ok with a parent forcing their child to give birth OR force them into having an abortion?
The parents already failed if their kid is having sex without their knowledge because obviously there is a reason they are keeping it from them. I think kids are entitled to their reproductive rights
It's not all about just having "the talk" it's also on how you give it. You can't just be like "Your going to have these urges to have sex but you better not or else you will end up pregnant and catching STDs and being emotionally scarred and it will be extremely disappointing us so you better just wait until marriage"
Bottom line: If you're doing your job as a parent correctly and approaching the issue of reproduction properly you won't need to worry about your kids taking their reproductive rights and sexual activity behind your back, nor worry about what the government says.
A parent denying their child an abortion isn't "forcing" anything. Birth is a natural result of intercourse, which the child chose to have. Unless the parent also forced the intercourse, your comparison is totally invalid.
...because kids understand and accept all good advice the first time they hear it, right?
Please point me to a source describing child "reproductive rights."
I disagree. If you're a parent with conservative views on sex (abstinence until marriage), you face an uphill persuasive battle against your child's peers, pop culture, hormonal impulses, and liberal political groups actively pushing their opinion into society. It's entirely possible to be a great parent and still not get through to your child before they make a mistake- in which case, being aware of their mistake is critical so you can have another conversation before the next mistake.
Yes it is. It is forcing birth.
No, not always and there is nothing wrong interfering with nature. People can and do have sex for pleasure and pleasure only believe it or not. Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to birth hate to break it to you.
And that advice would be "wait until marriage" right? LMAO and you wonder why the kids don't listen
Please point me to a source describing parents being able to force birth or abortion on their child or a parent being in total control of their childs reproductive rights. It's called child abuse to do either one of those things
That's the problem right there. You aren't parenting correctly if that's all you are teaching your kid about sex. My parents made that mistake so I know why it doesn't work first hand.
Your biggest and only legitimate uphill battle I see in there is the hormones. The desire to have sex is the 2nd strongest drive we have next to self preservation. Kids have been having sex since the dawn of time it's nothing new and has nothing to do with Liberals, media, or friends
If you are the "great parent" you claim to be then they will come to you when/if they make a mistake! My parents thought they were awesome parents by teaching me not to have sex until marriage but all they did was let me know that if I did have sex and they found out that they would be ashamed of me, I would be constantly monitored, I would get lots of big long fear mongering lectures even worse than the ones I already get, they would call in the family experts and so on.
Parents need to know if their 16 and younger daughters are sexually active. Period. The problem is too many parents are not involved with their kids' lives and are shocked to find out they are having sex at such young ages. I think the officials are correct in requiring the parent's and doctor's consent. It may just open up the lines of communication. I just hope for the girls' sake it was not the parent who is responsible for the pregnancy or the child feels safe to talk to a doctor or parent about the situation.
That's why you need to give them "the talk" early enough and you need them to understand that sex is okay if it's done safely. Otherwise they're bound to have sex in secret, and chances are they won't understand the importance of condoms and birth control.
Cindy,
In your perfect world, this probably works great. The reality is that one of two cases will be true.
1. The young girl is ashamed or scared to talk to her parents and will avoid doing so until morning sickness announces the obvious.
2. The parent does not care and would actually like to see her young daughter have a child because it means more money, food stamps, and such.
Either way, a young girls life is drammatically decided for her due to what may be one bad decision, contraceptive failure, or even shameful coersion.
Most people do not live in your perfect world and should not be forced to suffer when the source of anguish can be easily and discreetly avoided.
There are often reasons why the kids don't talk to their parents about their sexual activity. If the parent was doing their job to begin with this wouldn't even be a problem. It's not the doctors place to try open lines of communications between parent and child in regards to their reproductive rights. It's their job to make sure the patient is given medically and scientifically correct information and address their health. Not attempt to be a family fixer
Or in some cases the girl is threatened with grievous bodily harm. Still think a prescription is necessary?
Spartan - I totally agree. Clear, honest communication with your children when they're still young will help them steer clear of many common pitfalls. It also sets you, as the parent, up to be the one they come to with questions and concerns - not another equally uninformed peer.
LanaD, that's actually not true at all. A Pediatrician's job is to treat the entire child - physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. In fact, they are often the first person to recognize an abuse issue, a drug problem, strife at home....that is 100% part of their job. In my hospital, this exact discussion comes up frequently.
The problem is that parents dont want to talk to their kids about sex. The parents that do, have kids that use birth control consistently. The parents that don't have kids who dont use birth control. Most pregnant teenagers, have parents who didnt talk to them about sex and birth control. If they had access to this pill, maybe they wouldnt be pregnant?
I was 16 once, and there is no way a girl under that age is going to tell their parents they are having sex. Almost all my friends from age 16 down to age 10 were sexually active, and their parents never knew, except for the occasional 12-16 year old that became pregnant. If you apply statistics to this, you will see that if a 12 y.o. girl becomes pregnant, there were thousands of other 12 year old's who had sex but didn't become pregnant.
I knew of at least 10 girls that I knew of in my neighborhood during my teen years that had babies under the age of 14.
This is such bull@!$%#! The Plan B pill should be available to all women, regardless of age! Now, if they wanted females under the age of 17 to have a parent with them at the pharmacy, I'd be okay with that. But to force a young teen to get a prescription within - what is it - 72 hours after having sex? Complete and total horse @!$%#!
If the parent is with them at the store, what's stopping the parent from just purchasing the pill for the teen?
All they have to do is what's done today with cold medicines. Put the card on the shelf that you have to go to the pharmacy section to get.
I think it is a good deterent. A majority of girls under the age of 17 will think twice before having sex knowing that the drug is not available to them unless they say something to someone else.
You seriously think there are a bunch of teens out there holding off sex just because they can't get the plan b pill? LMAO!!
And you know they can always have someone over 17 other than their parents get it for them right?
Unhappy, and I am sorry you are, but, if you are a female, no matter what age, and the your partner breathes into the ear, the juices start flowing. We are made that way. No reason why this pill should not be available over the counter to all ages of teens.
All of you commenting on the lady who made the decision, yes, she is a Democrat, a blue dog democrat. She is Roman Catholic. You can bet her Catholic priests have been in touch with her and therefore, her decision.
Slightlyold? Why, then does "she" agree with the use of Plan B for "over 17". Your post is just silly!
If her decision was based on religious beliefs, she wouldn't agree with it AT ALL!
This is a serious drug...it isn't an aspirin. I certainly wouldn't want my underage daughter to just be able to go buy it and take it. How many drugs has the FDA deemed "safe", and then said "oops, guess it's not!".
In schools my kid can get suspended or even expelled for giving another kid a Tylenol tablet, but they think this is something you should just be able to go buy off the shelf? Insane. I'm glad someone in government has a little sense!
Isn't there a school nurse who hands out Tylenol to sick kids? While I don't agree with expulsion, giving each other Tylenol sets things up for abuse. What if it's not actually Tylenol but something nasty? What if it's expired? All sorts of problems could arise there.
Buying birth control over the counter, however, is fine because it's done through a pharmacist. When you buy Plan B, you're told exactly what you need to do with the pill.
You don't want your daughter to be able to buy this pill but she can, in most states, buy and use birth control pills without your knowledge or consent. What's the difference in taking the pill before sex or after?
So your okay with your underage daughter being able to buy aspirin?
Do you believe that aspirin is actually safe for a child?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reye's_syndrome
Aspirin isn't Plan B. Besides, there's always Tylenol or Advil.
They can't buy a lot of different over the counter medications. This is pretty consistent. Teachers can't even give my 17 year olds aspirin.
Correct. This isn't a radical move. There are many drugs that children under 17 can't purchase. Their bodies and brains aren't finished growing and developing yet, so drugs that might be safe for an adult, haven't been proved safe for a still developing child.
And I believe the girl and her parent can go to their family doctor and get a script written, but only fill it if necessary. This really isn't an issue to get in an uproar over.
It's been confirmed safe for those under 17--read the article again.
Spartan - I read the article. I was just speaking in generalities. There are many medications that are unavailable for children under 17 - this is not necessarily new news. Everyone just wants to flip out because it's a reproductive issue. Always a touchy subject...
And I didn't say I disagree - it's probably safe for anyone to use, including young girls. I think it's ironic though that many people are railing against the government on this post, but yet they trust the FDA to tell them a drug is safe...ha. Silly.
There is a reason teachers cant give a kid aspirin.
As long as there are big sisters around probably will be a self solving problem.
I agree with the decision. No kid should be allowed any access to a RX without their parents/guardians knowing about it. Who will watch her for side effects if no one knows she took it? If she can go have sex she can also have the guts to tell her parents.
And what if her parents refuse to let her end the pregnancy?
What if her parent is raping her and mother looks the other way ("I didn't know")
If a girl or a woman wants to abort their baby they'll find a way. And if the father is raping the girl again she needs to open her mouth and tell someone It is irresponsible to allow a child under our laws access to an RX without an adult knowing about it. What if that kid dies from the side effects ladies - what will ya say "Oh well we didn't know."
Adding parents to this complicates the matter tenfold. The pharmacist would tell the girl what side effects there may be. While some parents are fine with their kids having sex, others aren't. Telling your parents isn't always a viable option.
I'm sure you told your parents the first time you had sex, didn't you?
No I didn't since they're not okay with it. But some of my friends did. In fact, back in high school, one of them told his parents what he wanted to do and they willingly made themselves scarce.
Im pretty sure there aren't really many side effects that the parent would need to be around to witness...
None of which are that serious anyway. A small price to pay for avoiding something much more troublesome.
More federal government horsesh1t is what this is.
Plan B doesn't really work that well anyway. My wife took it one particular time, but we now have a daughter.
Did she take it as soon as she could? The longer you wait, the less effective it is. Besides, "the pill" is a better option regardless.
That is because nothing is 100% effective. You can get pregnant with birth control, condoms, or Plan B, but all of these REDUCE your chances of pregnancy and that is the point -- to stop all these unwanted teen pregnancies from even occurring. This would also reduce the amount of abortions performed, as well as the amount of teens dropping out of school and having to live off of the government or in an abusive situation out of financial need. Unfortunately, this woman did not even seem to consider this when she made such an ignorant decision.
With birth control and condoms, the chance of pregnancy could be as low as 0.01%--which is 1 in 10000. Add Plan B and it goes even lower. My point is that if you insist on playing it safe, the chance of pregnancy is negligible.
I got pregnant off the pill... I know people who got pregnant after they had their tubes tied. Pregnant on the shot, pregnant with IUD...
Nothing is 100% (there is a theory that someone even got pregnant while abstinent...)
BUT it is better than doing nothing... Yea, it wont work for everyone, but for the vast majority it will.
I'd estimate I've had sex with my wife over 3500 times... So even if we were using the pill and condoms we still have a 1 in 3 chance of having kids...
Turns out we have 2, a third in the oven, and none were planned. I guess the pill alone is not sufficient. Especially when you miss a day here or there. *sigh*
Getting myself fixed this time :)
Thankfully the laws of probability doesn't force the chance to increase. You're not drawing from a limited supply of non-pregnancies. Each occasion draws from its own pool.
On average, it's still 1 in 10000. The chance of pregnancy resulting from any particular encounter is lower. That's why using both a condom and the pill correctly can be so effective.
Spartan, I realize the statistical ramifications of all this, I was just attempting a bit of humor mixed in with a point that many married couples have sex many thousands of times over the course of their marriage.
So even if the odds are low...
I actually agree to having a parent with a girl under the age of17 at the pharmacy with them, too. But all women should have access to them.
Men have always had the morning after pill... they just get up and walk away.
JoMan....you speak the truth and very well.
Come on ladies....there has never been a post ever that deserved votes more than JoMans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fox Lies.
Teenagers need this pill more than ever. It is best to end a pregnancy before it stars.
lol well i can see why she ruled the way she did some girls hit puberty very early can you imagine an 11 year old girl getting pregnant after being sexually assaulted or raped? the fact the abuser can take and acquire this medication for her would leave no proof of the crime if she was found to be pregnant though as a consequence of some actions then it would be brought to the attention of the people that can protect her. I am inclined to agree with requiring a prescription for girls who are of breeding age but can not be expected to make that "decision" for herself.
Please...
That's probably <1% of the time young girls would need this pill. 99% of the time they probably just have the ordinary problem.
I would hope not there's no reason for an 11 year old child to be sexually active and her parents not know about it.
god - that line of reasoning just makes me sick - like a rape victim being pregnant would be a plus somehow?? It's not like girls haven't been forced to raise children by incest and shamed the entire time for being a teen mom to boot....
If a rape victim gets help soon after there will be plenty of physical evidence, but a pregnancy will just add to her trauma.
What if the girl has been raped by her father or stepfather? I smell politics here. There's an election coming up.
Then she needs more help then a morning after pill.
though that would be a place to start - why would you wish a pregnancy by rape on her?
". . . why would you wish a pregnancy by rape on her?"
Because of his "family values".
Guess I or my wife will go in and buy it. If one of my 3 daughters is raped or thinks maybe she had unprotected sex. Oh and we do have a line of communication for this.
Thinks she had unprotected sex? Wouldn't she know?
Sometimes people get cold feet afterwards, most often when they're not on "the pill". A condom isn't enough to stop everything if it isn't used correctly.
Kathleen Sebelius is a ‘jesus Freak’ moron. Whatever happen to the concept of separation of church & STATE?
This has nothing to do with the church. This is all state.
Forget the separation between church and state, what about parents being parents and the government staying out of it. If a 16 year old can get weed and beer, they will be able to get the morning after pill.