AP photo
President Obama and Secretary Sebelius talking health coverage last year in Maryland.
Yesterday, the FDA approved the emergency contraception Plan B for over-the-counter sales -- meaning no prescription needed, no identification necessary, no restrictions of any kind -- because "the drug could be used safely by women of all ages." Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius disagreed, and used her office's power to override the FDA for the first time in HHS history.
This did not go over well. "Left blogs fume over Plan B decision" was Politico's headline. Reactions ranged from disappointment to anger to utter surprise; criticism was alternately scientific and political in nature. In nearly every case, the decision was laid at President Obama's doorstep.
The President noted today that this was Secretary Sebelius' decision alone. Even so, he made it clear he agrees with her:
"I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine," Obama said during an impromptu news conference at the White House.
He said Sebelius decided 10- and 11-year-olds should not be able to buy the drug "alongside bubble gum or batteries" because it could have an adverse effect if not used properly. He said "most parents" probably feel the same way.
His statement seems aimed like a laser at parents (who vote), was that politically wise? My friend Irin Carmon doesn't think so, writing last night on the bigger picture:
Although it’s hard to believe that conservative voters would be particularly swayed by the president’s capitulation on this front, teen sex has always had a special place in paternalistic and politicized approaches to public health. It doesn’t matter that teenagers can, and do, get pregnant (or contract sexually transmitted diseases) just like women over 17. They still have to be “protected” by parental-notification laws about abortion or from comprehensive, scientifically grounded information about sex. Politically speaking, teenagers aren’t exactly a powerful voting bloc — but their terrified parents are presumed to be.
Leave a Comment:
When was the last time Obama or Sebelius had to buy cold medicine? In all likelihood, stores wouldn't put Plan B alongside bubblegum or batteries. They'd put it with the Pseudoephedrine cold medicine or Nicotine patches for quitting smoking. Both available over-the-counter, but usually stocked somewhere behind the counter.
Stores often won't even sell 10 and 11 year olds spray paint without an adult.
I thought it was illegal to purchase spraypaint if you were under the age of 18? Is that a state ban and not a federal one?
That's a state thing. But even without laws, I just can't see drug store cashiers selling something that can cause adverse effects to a 10 or 11 year old if they even had the money.
Maybe Obama was exaggerating when he said 10 and 11 year olds. But still, common sense?
I agree. This (granted partial) quote sort of flies in the face of common sense.
Of course drug stores aren't going to put it alongside "bubble gum." They don't put children's aspirins there either. Call it what it is, a temporary political move and he was in on it from the start, on that you can bet.
But the 10 year old can get the 18 year old to buy the stuff for them. A young person should not be using this as a contraceptive. I am with Sebelius on not making this an over the counter drug.
I stand corrected then. I remember when I worked for America's largest retailer we were not allowed to sell spraypaint or a select handful of other items (like Sudafed) to people under the age of 18 and the register would prompt you to enter in age/check for ID when someone was purchasing. The store even had posted on it's doors/windows that you could not purchase these products if you were under age 18 and that the cashier would ask. I had assumed it was a federal ban.
You do realize that your first statement and your second statement contradict, right? If a 10 year old can just get their 18 year old friend to purchase the drug then there is no point to putting an age limit restriction on it. In fact that would imply that GR's argument is more valid because in the latter situation a pharmacist would be the person in control of the distribution on a case-by-case basis. Additionally Plan B is not a contraceptive. It is an emergency measure that people take in order to prevent pregnancies after sex has happened and usually is taken in situations where birth control was missed and/or the condom broke. There is no reason to assume that a 10 or 11 year old would utilize this as a means of contraceptive and even if that was your assumption then it would be less prudent to have prohibition on the drug in question. Remember prohibition simply drives the desire underground. So who would we rather a 10 or 11 year old obtaining a drug like Plan B from? A pharmacist who can give medical information to that child and even potentially notify the child's parents OR some random 18 year old selling it at school?
As I said yesterday this does not seem to be a very well advised policy decision. It seems to be based more on moral hypotheticals and what people would like someone to do rather than what someone actually is or isn't going to do.
Most 10 year old girls have contraception. It's called not having a period or eggs yet.
Sure, I'm one of the minority of women who got their first period at 10 years old, but seriously. SERIOUSLY? You think most ten year olds can even get pregnant?
The average age a girl gets her first period is 13, and half don't even ovulate until 3 years after her first period. Good grief.
I am 49 and had to show my ID to buy spray paint. Welcome back to America today.
@ The Mouzer Plan B actually is a contraceptive. It says so right on their website.
A contraceptive prevents pregnancy. That is what this medication does. It does not terminate a pregnancy. It doesn't even harm the pregnancy should a woman already be pregnant when she takes it.
I think the phrasing you're looking for is 'regular birth control.' No girls or women should be using this medication as their only regular birth control.
Most people are missing the point.
Doctors take 72 hours to issue a prescription. Requiring a prescription is the same as a ban because it won't work after that. The only circumvent is to stockpile it and sell it (black market crime).
You can get a prescription sooner at an emergency room. The hospital is obligated to call the police if the woman is under 18. Underage women have to put someone in jail if they want this legally, which is what often happens if the parent are told.
Either way, requiring a prescription is going to create crime where none exists right now.
Another point being missed is that the FDA released it because it's safe for women of all ages to take.
No girl is going to be buying plan B on a whim. It's kind of expensive.
peanut9000
True. Ditto. Agree.
The most likely source of disagreement would be that the manufacturer probably did not provide test data to FDA for 7 year old girls, who might be able to obtain it at a store if the person running the cash register messes up.
Teen agers under 17 cannot purchase cough syrup over the counter because some use it to get intoxicated.
Also cannot buy handfuls of pseudoephedrine because this can be used to make methamphetamine, and you can't get it at all if you are under 17.
Both of those regulations work fine with over-the-counter medications.
Prohibition is worse than pointless.
You just require the manufacturer to put an age warning on the label, but a shoplifting tag on the package, and train the people running the cash registers.
Er OK I am sick and tired of people not taking context into consideration when replying to my comments. My expectation is that you keep up w/ the conversation, not start in the middle. Look at what I was responding to: the charge that this would be used as a contraceptive. It is not, nor will it be, by the standards people are using in conversation. Contraceptive, in this case, refers to a form of pregnancy prevention used on a continual basis. Plan B is not used in this way nor is it intended to be used in this way nor would adjusting the access to Plan B suddenly make the pill operate this way.
Okay, what seven year old is going to walk into a drug store and buy plan B?
A seven year old will be planted in front of the toys or the candy. A seven year old is not going to be searching out a pregnancy prevention pill in the drug store!
On the other hand, if a thirteen year old is in the drug store to buy plan b, well, it's tragic, and she needs it, and she needs not to be prevented, judged, questioned, or anything else along those lines. What she needs is the pill, a hug and the ear of an adult she can trust. And a doctor's appointment. And help getting her molester off her.
Excuse me if I descend into flaming. I have 4 daughters and this emotionally hits me hard.
My first impression was- the subtext here is not encouraging teen sex. The stated rational is medical, but the FDA has rendered the verdict from science, so all you are left with is the moral argument. So let's out that.
Our family is a church every Sunday, prayer at every meal kind of deal, so I think I can see how a lot of conservative democrats and independents look at the overt "moral" framing of the topic.
It is baloney in two ways. First gender fairness, second it is myopic superficial moralism masquerading as a moral position. First gender fairness: If either of my two sons can buy condoms along with their toothbrushes, why can't any of my four daughters if they are not yet 17? Now, I would think my wife and I had failed if any of our children were out callously engaging in sport sex at any age. I have seen the wreckage of lives caused by unwanted pregnancies- especially for the very young.
That brings us to the second point is where the larger moral issue is. I understand about not encouraging promiscuity, but the place to decisively do that is how you raise your kids, not some bureaucratic hurdle at the retail store. Because I know how that works. The promiscuous ones will find a way anyway. It's like buying booze when you are underage. It is just a bit more of a hassle on Saturday night. You just have to ask someone old enough (isn't it anyone over 17?) to buy the pills because they don't need the prescription.
I guess that puts me in the minority on how most church going Christians view this one, but those on the Christian Left are used to not getting much sympathy either from the right or the left.
I appreciate your points and applaud you for "thinking through" your point! Having said that you do realize that "morality" in America has been utterly devoid of "reality" and depends upon which "sanctified, born again" hypocritical religuluous institution you belong to....
Very well put. A fine amplification on the booze parallel I posted yesterday, and better in that it speaks to the role of parents and, in something that may not be very popular here, acknowledges there is such a thing as the Religious Left (I do not use "Chrisitian" here as I feel it too limiting).
Still, the libertarian side of my socialist self dislikes any restiction and that is not a contradiction of the first paragraph. It is an admission the issue is problematic.
What you do not address, though, is the issue of misbehaving parents/gurdians/relatives which was a significant part of yesterday's discussion, but I quite honestly do not see how that can be addressed by any policy. Aberrance being both by name and definition abberant.
I guess in my rant I was not clear about why it is empty moralism. Maybe people don't have much personal contact with what teenage pregnancy does to the lives of young women. By the time the kid is getting loaded or frolicking with cute boys, it is too late/ too stupid to think a minor barrier is going to have any impact. It most of these cases I would bet it is parent not the child has been the huge F-Up.
So let's not congratulate ourselves about padlocking the barn door after the frisky colt is off and about. That is why it is moralism. But I called it empty moralism.
It is empty because of the real moral impact this heaps on young mothers with an unwanted pregnancy. The boy can run off, but for the girl- it could mean her life is basically relegated to poverty due to one error on one night. There are plenty of studies that show that poverty leads to teenage pregnancy and teenage pregnancy leads to poverty. This is so intertwined with the deep immorality of race, class and gender it just makes me feel nauseous at the darkness swirling around this empty ban. It is no coincidence that traditional moralism about teenage sex- such as that prevalent in the state of Texas my ancestors settled- actually generates rather than combats horrific results. Texas has the highest rates of teen pregnancy, and ranks ninth in the Poverty rankings.
One would think that true Christians would be concerned about such a hideously immoral impact of the moralist policies that ban contraceptives or education about them in the schools.
If anyone is at war with true Christianity, it is idolators of literalism like Governor Perry.
Crikies, I just can't seem to stop flaming. Sorry. As Rachel used to say- someone talk me down.
Well said John. It's hard to look at the real world and deal with its problems. It is easier to place, blame, point fingers, punish someone (usually the girl), fall back on religious dogma, etc.
I think religion has done more harm than good in all too many cases. Common sense and understanding gives way to complete stupidity as evidenced by Rick Perry and others. Self-righteous prigs the lot of them.
Women have been the whipping post for all the troubles of the world. Let's stop the madness!
Rant on John...
Your daughters can buy condoms, and should. There is precedent for asing your rapist to wear a condom. Girls must be prepared for everything. The day after pill is a hormonal intervention that should not be used as birth control. We need to open up the conversation in this nation about sex, sexual health, sexual abuse, and rape. Our nation has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation. That is not because of a lack of the day after pill but because of a puritanical lack of education about sex and ownership of one's body. I am a liberal--very liberal--and would want my daughter, if I had one, to have access to this medication. However, I would hope I had raised her to protect herself by being strong, smart, and bold. I have done that with my son, 15, who has enormous respect for women. Parents must be parents--we need to make them do it and allow our public schools to teach the facts that parents leave out or don't know to begin with.
Sorry, posts crossed, the post above was not in response to Zora or NextMSNBc.
Zora- my identification is not with a particular "hypocritical religulous institution"- my religious position is close to that of Paul Tillich or Owen Barfield. Categories used for self identification- theological positions, church membership, and religious/non religious affiliations are largely ineffective at figuring out who the individual standing in front of you actually is. You have to look at the reality of their thoughts and actions. I prefer the company of the devout and pious- regardless whether they self identify as atheist, Taoist, or have no opinion or interest on the subject of religion. Piety is betrayed to me in their inclinations towards the poetic rather than the mechanically literal.
NextMSNBC- Of course religious left is broader, but more vague. Even Christian Left is not especially descriptive of me- even Jim Wallis probably would have a hard time accepting the expansive vision of Tillich. Martin Luther King's thesis on him described him less as a Christian and more as a Hindu or Buddhist. I don't think we should get off in the weeds about that and I haven't yet read what you wrote yesterday on the "booze parallel". So I will go off and read that now.
This is the exact problem, though, Anna. First off you have no reason to think that this pill will be used as a contraceptive. Plan B is and was designed for use in emergency situations only. Secondly you have no reason to think that the pharmacist wouldn't instruct a child of this information upon purchase. By making a child wait to get a prescription all you do is slow down the process and make it HIGHLY unlikely that a child will be able to access Plan B in the necessary time frame for it to be effective. All you end up accomplishing in this instance is increasing the likelihood of a 12 year old to be pregnant as opposed to helping. No one here is arguing against preventative measures and this decision by the HHS has nothing to do w/ education. All this has to do w/ is access to Plan B for people under the age of 17.
The Mouzer
True.
It takes 72 hours to get into your physician, and this medication is pointless after that.
Requiring a prescription is the same thing as not approving it.
JohnMesserly
I have a daughter.
Would you prefer your daughters obtain this medication from a black market source or from the drug store? Doctors take 72 hours to issue a prescription. The only circumvent is to stockpile it and sell it (black market crime).
Would you put your daughter's boy-friend in jail? You can get a prescription sooner at an emergency room. The hospital is obligated to call the police if the woman is under 18. Underage women have to put someone in jail if they want this legally.
Which is it?
You realize that requiring a prescription is the thing that creates this situation? Right?
@Crackhead- not sure I understand your point. You do understand that I am against the ban do you not?
Assuming you do- I am against black market anything. I instill resourcefulness in my daughters, and I believe all of them have the would have the initiative and drive to to secure Plan B without resorting to the black market.
Trying to get the boyfriend in jail would solve nothing. Are you fishing around for structural partner solutions. Ok, I'll go there. As soon as whichever daughter was on the rocks with the boy and I could not talk her out of promiscuity, if she had any bisexual inclinations I would encourage her to explore her feelings towards women and maybe she would learn a bit more of the value of stability. I have found most young men are not terribly sensible about relationships but have found women to be far more interested in deep connections. My wife disagrees and thinks men are more interesting- which was fortunate for me.
.
another issue spoken in words a brainwashed individual should be able to understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f8tHLkEQAw&feature=g-u
if your reading this miss maddow. how about we start see the right hook coming rather than the left hand waving and distracting you.
this post has nothing to do w/ the topic at hand
Some parents don't give a hoot, some are the cause of the problem in the first place, some are clueless. Politicians need to look at the real world and so do uber-Christians and uber-religious groups.
As a Roman Catholic you can guess my PERSONAL views on issues like these. But this is America. Freedom trumps personal views. Do what you view is personally right and let others do what they view to be personally right. Imposing your morals on others is ANTI-AMERICAN.
This has traditionally (at least within my lifetime) been one of the main differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. But both parties are now socially conservative and that is not leaving those of us who believe in freedom and liberty with a choice. Freedom and liberty are really my main concern. The Patriot Act, torture, Habeas Corpus, search and seizure, imprisonment without representation or trial, these are HUGE concerns of mine but BOTH parties are acting more like fascist parties than democratic government representatives.
As far as fiscal policies go, the Republicans have proven that they can no longer claim that practice. They have been reckless financially since Reagan. It's the Dems who have to continually come in and clean up their financial messes so it's the Dems who are now financially conservative. They Dems just need to stick to their socially liberal policies protecting freedom and liberty because that's where they are going wrong.
The head of HHS that over-rode FDA approval and mandated prescription that prohibits over-the-counter access is also Roman Catholic (as am I).
The medication has been proven to be effective and safe for teen-agers, so the science does not support prohibition.
The concept of this medication violates several church cannons. This decision was clearly motivated by religion and not by science.
Kathleen Sebelius is using her office to co-mingle religion with public law. That has been proven to be a bad idea more than once.
sedwinmars, you renew my faith in my fellow humans from the religious side of things. Thank you for being a thinker, and believing in the values that made this a great nation. It's not something I hear a lot.
Crackhead Awards, it's really a sad irony that it's a woman standing in the way of women, and not the drug company.
One person has decided her opinion is more important than the health, welfare and future of young women in the United States. One person has decided she's going to impose her values on the rest of us.
Sebelius is no better than Norquist. They're both massive blood clots in the circulatory system of our nation. They're the constipation we're suffering from.
Religion and Capitalism. Clots and Constipation.
For a Roman Catholic, you're alright sedwinmars! :)
I can't believe you just wrote that in a public forum, newsblog903. Perhaps you need to talk to more Roman Catholics if one of them being thoughtful and intelligent is such a surprise to you.
Believe it Matt. I used to be a Roman Catholic. I had a family full of them. blog#6 is much more thoughtful and reasonable than most. If in doubt about that just look to the Pope! Geez the guy is still operating out of the middle ages.
Well, I don't think the Pope is a very good representation of all the Catholics I've known in my life, so there's that irony. Compared to the Pope, most rabid squirrels would look like good people. And I suppose I'll give your sweeping, hateful statement a pass if it comes from your unfortunate upbringing. I'll stay out of it and let you and your therapist work those issues out.
I, too, was raised Catholic, and I would say some are thoughtful while others aren't. Some are liberal & some are conservative. Some are flat out commies and others are flat out fascists. Many of the most intelligent, caring, thoughtful & progressive people I have ever met have been Catholic, though, and your statement indicated your experience with them has been far more narrow than my own.
No, my experience with Catholicism has been on the whole good. I love my Catholic family dearly (what's left of them). The Pope and his henchmen are the head of the Catholic Church and he is THE representative. You can not separate the Pope from the Church. No out on that one!
We are way off topic here, but I just don't know why everyone thinks because I'm not a Catholic anymore I had a bad experience. Not at all, I just grew up and started thinking for myself. Freedom from religious dogma has been the best thing that's ever happened!
By-the -way, what sweeping, hateful statement???????????????
newsblog903, my guess would be your observation that the pope is still lodged in the middle ages. Since when, I'd like to know, is the truth a "sweeping, hateful statement"?
And congratulations on becoming a Recovering Catholic! You've joined the company of Bill Maher and other worthies!!
As I understand it, this isn't a moral issue at all. Secretary Sebelius simply indicates she reversed the FDA’s decision because she had concluded that data submitted by the drug’s maker did not “conclusively establish” that Plan B could be used safely by the youngest girls. Basically, she doesn't think the FDA's decision is good enough for the health and safety of young women. How is this, then, a "moral" issue like so many irate posters indignantly claim?
Because only the rarest of 10 year olds is menstruating and ovulating. The US average is for menstruation is age 12. Ovulation typically begins a year after. The slim chance that a 10 year old is having sex and could even potentially become pregnant is the reason every other woman in this country has to leap through hurdles for her family planning which could potentially take so long that the drug is no longer even an option.
Plus, how many 10 year olds do you know that can make a Doc's appointment in order to acquire the prescription? It's a a restriction that adds the "parental consent" barrier that has been used frequently in other family planning laws. If you have experience the issues at play here, you can read between the lines and see it for what it is.
They don't want anyone to have access to this medication without forcing them to have a conversation about it with:
1) the receptionist that makes the appointment and asks the reason for coming in;
2) the nurse when you arrive at the appointment and asks again;
3) the doctor who will ask several invasive questions to determine the 'necessity' of the drug so that they can have a defense against any potential malpractice suits; and
4) the pharmacist or pharmacy tech who dispenses the medication.
The more people they can add to that list, the more likely that the woman will be too embarrassed to continue. It's not a fun conversation to repeat and particularly difficult for teenagers. When I was 18 and made my appointment for birth control, no matter how kind everyone was, I felt vulnerable and terrified that I was being judged. I can only imagine how much more difficult that experience would have been if I'd been also facing the stigma around unprotected sex and the Right's false assertions that this medication is the same as an abortion (and don't get me started on the problems THAT stigma causes). Hiding these medications behind doctors and pharmacists makes them something that needs to be hidden and shameful.
Further, men in our society aren't generally judged for their sexual activity. A male teenager buying condoms might think he looks more studly for picking up prophylactics. Women are more likely to fear and receive judgement. That our contraception is dispensed in the same way that Valtrex is doesn't help with perception that we're doing something wrong by being sexually active and responsible about it.
Actually, your daughters can buy condoms too. And I'm sure while your kids are smart and well adjusted and make excellent decisions, the truth is that many young children may not, especially when it comes to sex and contraception. I don't like the idea of some 11 or 12 year old girl buying such medication without a parent's consent. This has nothing to do with gender bias, cause I wouldn't want my son buying such medication either. Funny that some parents would complain about governmental restrictions on their children, but will in the same breath want their kids protected in other ways.
What would an 11 year old be doing alone in a pharmacy anyway?
The 11 or 12 year old girl looking for this particular medication needs it and needs it now. And she very well might have a really good reason for not wanting her parents to know. At that age, it's probably pretty likely it was a family member or other adult "friend" that put her in the position she's in.
I don't see how one could oppose a girl that young from getting this medication without feeling actual hostility toward the girl who finds herself needing it. It's not like this is a recreational drug.
It's entirely possible that 11 or 12 year old never bought condoms because she thought she'd be waiting to have sex, like her parents want, but found herself unexpectedly presented with the opportunity to be alone with a boy she liked, and didn't know how to stop herself. Perhaps she's learned her lesson and won't be doing it again until she knows she's ready, perhaps she's even going to tell her parents. But perhaps it's going to take more than 72 hours for her to summon the courage to tell them. She has a very short window to take Plan B and avoid a much, much more difficult conversation and choice.
Let's be clear here- you have 72 hours in which to use Plan B in order for it to be effective. Plan B does not stop pregnancies once they have happened. The second the egg is implanted along the uterine wall Plan B is ineffective. The longer you wait before using Plan B the less likely it is to be effective. The majority of doctors (and in fact the manufacturer of Plan B itself) recommend that if you are going to take the drug you do so w/in a few hours of the situation that prompted you to believe you needed it in the first place. Plan B is an emergency measure. It is NOT a contraceptive. By making a child first notify her parents so that her parents can then notify a doctor so that the doctor can then write a prescription so then the family can go to a pharmacy and have it filled out so that the child can then finally take the drug you have added so many kinks in the process that it is HIGHLY unlikely the drug will be taken in time to be effective. More than likely the girl will end up being outside of her 72 hour window.
The medication in question is hormones. And I assure you, an 11 or 12 year old girl's body is going to produce unpredictable levels of hormones without your consent. And she's probably not going to be able to get pregnant because she's not old enough to have a regular menstrual cycle.
Pregnancy requires an egg and a sperm... something which prepubescent humans don't produce. You're trying to fix a problem that is extremely rare.
You need to up the age of your argument to 13-14 for it to be anywhere near realistic.
Most of the people on these threads are missing the point.
It takes 72 hours to get a prescription from a doctor. This medication won't work after that, so requiring a prescription is the same thing as banning it. The only way around that is for some enterprising women to stockpile it and sell it (black market crime).
On the other hand, you can get a prescription sooner if you go to an emergency room. The difficulty is that you have to tell them you have been raped or they will not issue a proscription. If the woman is under 18, the hospital is obligated to call the police and run a rape kit. That means you have to have someone put in jail if you really really really want this and you can't find it on the black market.
Either way, requiring a prescription for access is going to create more crime where none exists right now.
Matt it is exactly like it's a recreational drug according to those who believe that a wave of recreational sex is about to break out as soon as the kids can get their hands on this stuff.
Teens have sex. No matter how much you try to deny it, they do. Not all of them, mind you, but they do.
Now what would be the more common sense approach - let them have access to the contraceptives they should really have if they're going to have sex, or make it difficult for them? (thus them having sex not quite as safely as they should be)
It's time we get our heads out of our butts. Having it available on the shelves isn't going to make an 11-year old stop and think "Hmmm, I can spend my lunch money on Plan B, I'm gonna go have sex now!" The same way not having it available without a prescription is going to make a 15 year old girl think "Oh no, I can't easily get Plan B, there's no way I'm going to have sex." Get real. Sure, maybe some uneducated girl will get conned into just taking Plan B by her boyfriend instead of him putting a rubber on.
Which is why this stuff needs to be taught both in schools and by proactive parents.
Stop legislating morality, legislate reality. We can figure out the morality for ourselves.
Let's play Guess That Quote!
http://youtu.be/nNbaig-D5pk
"alongside bubble gum or batteries" Sure, if you consider Tylenol (which could be fatal at large dosages) and bleach (which is a chemical that kills everything) is alongside bubble gum and batteries, too. There are a lot of dangerous things that 11- and 12-yr-olds can get at a supermarket, but that doesn't mean they'll buy or use them. Parents should be smart enough to know what their kids are buying, and kids aren't stupid enough to spend their money on a drug, with warning labels, that they don't want or need. I think it's ridiculous to believe that this is about the kids. It's not.
"Common sense" should tell us that kids aren't going to use this product, so making sure the drug is safe for them is a moot point. The FDA says it's safe and that's the same measure we've always used for all the other OTC drugs that are available today. That's good enough for me.
Hell, batteries are toxic too.
The decision by the HHS doesn't change much in effect (as the drug is already illegal for access by people under the age of 17 w/o prescription), but it does now show us that the decision has been made in contradiction to the science. The science has said that Plan B can be used by people at earlier ages w/o there being medical dangers. The 'common sense' statements and everything else are from this hyperbolic, insane reaction that operates under the assumption that kids will suddenly rush to the pharmacy to purchase Plan B like tic-tacs or something and start having sex. It's the same line of thinking: if you give a kid a condom he'll have sex.
I absolutely agree with Secretary Sebelius' decision. Just because something CAN be done doesn't necessarily mean it SHOULD be done. The President was right.
11 year old taking anything like this should have to consult her parents. Even a 14 year old. Let parents friggin parent.
But they don't that's the point.
I think you're vastly overestimating the percentage of parents who are prepared to rationally deal with their 11 year old daughter approaching them with news that she needs emergency contraception. And you're also vastly overestimating the typical 11 year-old's ability to have this conversation with her parents.
Again people Plan B is not a form of contraceptive. You have a 72 hour window to take Plan B from the point you believe your contraceptive failed or you had unprotected sex. By making children go through a longer process to gain access to the pill you are merely increasing the likelihood that Plan B will be ineffective. This is not about whether or not you think children should or shouldn't be having sex. This is not about whether or not you agree w/ abortion. This is not about whether or not you think children should be talking to their parents about sexual activities.
Yes, it is.
It's not birth control designed for regular use and it is not effective enough to replace other birth control methods. But it is a contraceptive.
If parents were actually parenting their children, this discussion would not be happening.
Requiring young women with inadequate parenting to inform the parents that they need this medication is like trying to put out a fire by adding gasoline.
Access in less that 12 hours requires an emergency room visit if you need a prescription. If the woman is under 18, the hospital must inform the police. Someone is going to jail.
The alternate access is black-market drugs, so children can avoid telling their parents by purchasing it at school from older women that want to make some money.
So which is it?
@ForceStrong- see my response above. Le sighs.
Crackhead Awards, Yes! Parenting is the answer!! But few people actually know how to do that, and no one is teaching it.
Parenting should be taught in school. Daycare can be provided free for working parents, and kids can get hands on experience dealing with babies and young children. In combination with sex education from which no one is exempted, and free birth control, these would be incredibly powerful teaching tools that would benefit society on many, many levels.
Before and after school programs to make sure latch-key kids are supervised, and I bet our 'need' for prisons would plummet dramatically.
It's cheaper to educate a child than to incarcerate an adult. An educated child grows up to be a tax-paying citizen.
EDUCATION, NOT INCARCERATION!
This is why I didn't vote for Obama (well, that and so many other things) He is a republican in disguise.
This was between Kathleen Sebelius (HHS) and Margaret Hamburg (FDA).
FDA is inside HHS, so Sebelius outranks Hamburg.
Kathleen Sebelius appears to have approached the situation the way that she did because of Roman Catholic beliefs that have nothing to do with the science.
At nearly $50 a pill children will not be buying them without help from adults. Only rich people can afford not to have unwanted pregnancies.
If it's 50 bucks a pill there is no need to tell the pharmacist to keep it behind the counter.
You know this medication will be locked up just like alcohol and cigarettes, and the only sales-people with a key will be over 21, so the whole prescription thing is idiotic.
at 50 bucks a pill, if pharmacists don't keep it locked up, plan B will be shoplifted.
I can't even buy kitchen gloves without checking the box to make sure both of them are in there! Bandaids? Please. I bought an empty box once.
Cutting the crap on this parental notification bull@!$%#.
My mind has be seriously blown by this topic. Blown.
Is the argument against Plan B being available over the counter...really...is it really that on the off chance a 10 year old girl has early on-set puberty AND gets pregnant (which odds are, would be the result of sexual abuse) she should carry it to term?
Or are people really suggesting that pre-teen girls are promiscuous? Kids?
I had originally interpreted Obama's argument as not wanting little girls to accidentally take this pill if they had access to it. I didn't think the argument was that pre-teen girls want to start having consensual sex, and would if only they had access to Plan B.
You can only exaggerate the age at which girls become sexually active so much. At some point you're going to hit a biological wall.
The belief is if you talk about protective measures against pregnancy and STD's, that if you provide access to those protective measures, and if you talk about or make readily accessible things associated w/ sexual activities like Plan B that children will invariably begin having sex. Therefore you wouldn't want to provide this medication over the counter because a child will see it and then will invariably purchase the product. And then she will probably not know enough about the world so she'll think it's a means of contraceptive and then begin having sex thinking this will keep her 100% safe from pregnancy. Since she's only 11 or 12 years old she probably doesn't understand the consequences of her sexual behavior. Thus we need to make her tell her parents so that she can be informed of the things she's clearly lacking and be taught correct morality so as to avoid this whole fiasco in the future. And also so that the parents can buy a shotgun, ya know just in case.
Yep.
Children under 12 won't have access to this in the same way they don't have access to alcohol or cigarettes.
The only things requiring a prescription will accomplish are:
Short list.
You solve the youth access issue by putting an age warning on the label, locking it up in the store so you need a key for access, and train the over-21 sales people that have a key. That works with cough syrup and allergy medications that children sometimes use to get intoxicated.
It is illegal to allow children under 12 to remain in a house without someone over 16, so the only way a child under 12 could do anything that would make them pregnant would be
Short list.
If the prescription requirement remains, then we are going to see this in the news, and not in a nice way.
I live in an economically disadvantaged area of PA. We have an increasing STD and teen pregnancy rate. Our HIV rate is higher than the national rate due to our drug rehab centers and prisons. Our hospital is catholic affiliated. Even if you are raped you cannot get Emergency Contraception at the emergency room and of course our Family Planning Center is in this hospital so they do not dispense EC either. Another blow for women's health care, another government regulation that discriminates against poor teens who are trying to prevent pregnancy and abortion.
Plan B will not stop anything that u mention. How do u know it works? If u didn't use protection in the first place Plan B is not a plan one thinks about. People need to start thinking. Common sense.
Just another example of our goverment telling us we don't know how to make decisions for ourselves. Really? What are the chances a 10-11 year old would seek this medication out without a really really good reason. Aren't these pill sort of expensive?? Seriously, think about it.... 1 for conservatives, 0 for reproductive freedom. Way to go Obama, you kissed the conservative A** again.
PBO made a common sense decision. An 11 year old needs to seek a counselor because she is being raped by a relative or close family friend. This may be normal in some families but Plan B is the last thing a girl in this situation needs.
Plan B is not a brith control pill. Might as well give a child drugs and alcohol. Anyone who argues this is a wrong decision has mental issues.
How about a 16 year old whose condom just broke? The cutoff age is 17.
PBO did not make a common sense decision. He simply backed Kathleen Sebelius's personal decision to go against the drug company, and the FDA, who say the pill is safe for women of all ages and should be available over the counter without restrictions.
Not every girl is fortunate enough to have parents she can talk to. Some young girls get pregnant while having sex against their will, often times with a family member. Sexual abuse. Incest. Perhaps you've heard of these things? These girls may not know they have resources. They may think they're completely alone, and be scared to death to talk to anyone.
The President and Ms. Sebelius have just made the lives of young women in this country much worse by allowing religious conviction to replace medical recommendation, and social responsibility.
No the family member who raped the child is the enemy. A child is not a woman. If a girl 12 years old can buy Plan b u might as well give them alcohol. If u think YOUR child can use Plan B then buy it for them an give it to them like candy.
Tanyars5, you are making what point?
That being molested by your dad means your mom should give you alcohol?
That medicine taken in ways you disagree with is just like eating candy?
u isn't a word, and you can't seem to make a coherent point.
The "common sense" is that your 12 year old daughter will get pregnant, and your 16 year old daughter will not. The "perfect world" theorists would have 13 year old girls who do something horribly stupid, or who are somehow taken advantage of, would run home and tell their parents, but that's not what happens. It's a miniscule number of girls who would be in this position, compared to older ones, but they'll be having babies.
What y'all have missed of Jamil Smith's post other than Randi1234 is that Obama's support (orchestration?) of Sebellius' decision is another example of Obama's conservative positions since his 2010 mid-term shellacking. Just like Obama's non support of gay marriage, his continuation and expansion of the Bush doctrine in the middle east and north africa, the postponement of the Keystone XL pipeline until 2013 when he is reelected and does not need to fear the wrath of the environmental left or is out of office would outrage me if I bought his "Hope and Change" bill of goods. For those of you who did not click on the following link, "Left blogs fume over Plan B decision here is the beginning of the article:
Stunned progressive bloggers were furious over the Obama administration’s surprise decision to continue to restrict the sale of the morning-after pill for minors, overriding an earlier FDA recommendation.
At a time when the president’s campaign is trying to rally the party’s base, the left bloggers expressed confusion and disappointment that a Democratic administration would make such a decision - and they said Obama had shoved aside the science about Plan B One-Step in favor of reelection politics.
“This action is, quite simply, a disgrace. It’s awful on the merits, and politically involves attacking a core constituency of the Democratic Party for no obvious benefit,” writes Scott Lemieux at the American Prospect. “Overriding professional FDA scientists in order to advance an agenda hostile to reproductive freedom and the equality of women is not what most Democrats believed they were voting for.”
“This is the first time an HHS secretary has ever overruled the FDA, and it’s a blow to those of us who believe that Democratic administrations are more willing to be guided by scientific evidence than Republican ones,” concurred progressive Mother Jones writer Kevin Drum.
Indeed, many liberals characterized the decision as one in which political calculations trumped scientific evidence.
“What should have been a routine decision based on sound scientific and medical evidence just got hijacked by politics – again… A woman who fears she might become pregnant needs fast access, not delays at the pharmacy counter,” added Jessica Arons at ThinkProgress, who called the decision “stunning.”
A friend of mine, an RN, many years ago, assisted a doc to perform an abortion on a 12 year old, pregnant by a family member. The doc was extremely and purposely rough in his work, so she'd remember to not have sex again until she was married! His attitude seems in line with the folks who think that all young girls who have sex do so with deliberate intent, and deserve what they get. I wonder how she dealt with this trauma as she got older, and did she ever have anything near a normal sex life? While having to go through some trouble to get plan B in time, it would probably would be far less traumatic in the long run.
At this point I'm really trying to like this president after voting for him but the 'next to bubblegum and batteries' remark has me wondering what planet he's on right now.
A child is not a woman. People get a grip on reality.