President Obama’s decision today to side with the evangelical wing of The Republican party against the people who put him in office, and fight to restrict the availability of safe medicine in deference to extremist religious views — apparently we should be making progress as a nation, guided by reason, in every area except women’s health: there we should let ancient prejudices write the laws for everyone in the country — is the latest astounding reminder of how grotesquely removed the administration has become from their taken-for-granted and kicked-to-the-curb base. NYT:
The Obama administration said Wednesday that girls under 15 should not have access to the most common morning-after contraceptive pill as the Justice Department filed a notice to appeal a judge’s order that would make the drug available without a prescription for girls and women of all ages.
The appeal reaffirms an election-year decision by Mr. Obama’s administration to block the drug’s maker from selling it without consideration of age, and puts the White House back into the politically charged issue of access to emergency contraception.
In appealing the judge’s decision, the Justice Department is following the urging of dozens of conservative, anti-abortion groups who do not want contraceptives made available to young girls. But it is sure to draw the ire of some abortion rights advocates who say the drug is safe and should be made available to any girl or woman who wants it.
It is one thing to take a campaign position. It is quite another to pro-actively appeal — appeal! — a federal court decision. Why should religious zealots decide what medicines people can get: that is a matter of individual freedom of choice, guided by science. As to how Obama got re-elected, HuffPo has a quick history lesson: “Obama beat Romney among women, 56%-44% — 12 points. Romney beat Obama among men, 54%-46% — 8 points.” Rock, meet hard place.
It is going to be a long time before Organizing for America gets any money from me. Maybe Focus on the Family will write a big check. I can hear the White House political advisors (should any of them actually care in the slightest what a progressive blogger has to say, now that the election is past) laughing into their sleeves: a day late, and $1.072 billion short, dude. That is exactly the mistake Hilary Clinton’s 2008 campaign team made, to their grief. More generally, “Better than the alternative,” is no way to sustain a national political party over the long term.
Sometimes partisans do that: go from being political appointee to permanent bureaucrat as an Administration ends.
Did anyone here work in DOJ? Is it possible for a small number of rightwingers in the DOJ to continue to flush taxpayer money by engaging in quixotic appeals? I would think Atty. Gen. Holder could just say: NO, we have to spend that part of our budget on prosecuting white collar crime because it is a higher priority.
… and this coming right after our “Democratic” President proposes to cut Social Security benefits. I mean why are we pounding the pavement to elect “Democrats” if this is what we get for our trouble?
I have read this:
far too often. I agree completely with Bob:
In 2008 I donated every month and traveled on my own dime to four swing states to campaign for Obama. In 2012 he got my vote, but not my time or money. Now, I wish OFA the best on the gun control stuff, but
I’ll support groups and candidates who don’t betray my principles with regularity. I said so on Daily Kos and had 15 downrates in the first half hour, but enough is enough with this guy.
Not like there has never been an age restriction on an otherwise legal substance. I hope there are ways in can be quickly accessible and administered in the event of a rape, but I don’t think a judge is equipped to order that something be available without a prescription if the potentcy of a drug warrants a prescription. It’s too easy for both sides to let ideology get in the way of science it seems.
Or are you proposing age restrictions for aspirin, too? Because if taken improperly, or by people with certain medical conditions, that too can cause serious injury. Medical experts say this medicine is safe. The only reason to limit its availability is the religion-based arguments of far right wing: the same people who voted for Romney just a few months ago.
Who determines whether something is available by prescription? I assumed it was the FDA on advice from the medical community. There are of course other substances deemed OK for adults but not safe for minors, often because of lack of full physical development of the latter. It is OK to have concerns about availability that have nothing to do with religion.
The FDA says it is fine for everyone without a prescription, like aspirin. The Obama administration stepped in for political reasons (although of course they deny it, which no one believes, not even a federal judge). The judge told them politics has no place in this kind of decision, and ordered them to follow science. That is the decision they are going to spend our money to appeal.
…to overrule the political decisions except where the constitution is being violated, and I see no constitutional right for a minor to access a given controlled substance. By that standard you could constitutionally challenge restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. Besides, aren’t you the one who has said the courts don’t have the power of judicial review the way many of us understand it?
The FDA has ruled, for years, that planB is medically safe. That has NEVER BEEN the objection to it. Surely you know this, Christopher.
The objection is that it stops a potential pregnancy after fertilization may have occurred. This objection is rooted in the religious belief that life begins at conception — there is no medical basis to object.
If your concerns genuinely have “nothing to do with religion”, then you can relax and get on board the opposition to this example of yet another intrusion of right-wing conservative Christianity on public policy.
A many my know I take my more moderate stance on abortion and my Catholic faith seriously, but this is bullshit. The morning after pill
is NOT an abortifacient, it is a safe and reliable way to ensure that conception does not happen making it a mild
form of birth control. This pill prevents abortion as far as I’m concerned and should be available to any woman that needs it. Considering the pressures and date rape issues among teenage girls I’d rather they be safe than sorry, and I’d rather they go to a pharmacy, get this, and avoid the pain and complications of an abortion or unwanted pregnancy down the road.
The Bishops, incapable of articulating a just and consistent response to sex abuse, have opposed this President at every turn, lied about
ACA funding abortion and came out against universal health insurance-something the Church has strongly backed since the 1880s. Obama wins no friends there by supporting this, no allies on the other side. What e does do is endanger women’s health, including the health of young women te same age as his daughters, to make a politicized decision that few will side with him on. Dumb politics and dumb policy are going had in hand.
Chamberlain of domestic policy, but practically speaking, this is good.
Fifteen means that kids will be able to get the pills and give them to younger kids. Twelve year-olds are not going to walk into a pharmacy and buy the morning-after pill. Neither are 13 year-olds. And probably not 14 year-olds. Even if they have sex, most aren’t thinking like a junior in college. This change is a huge, practical step toward making these pills available to all females.
If Obama had lowered the age to 12, there would have been a firestorm and the whole thing would have lost support. At 15, it will be harder for the next President to turn back the regulations.
While I sadly think you’re probably correct about this, I still find it ironic that no “firestorm” blossoms from the huge number of thirteen and fourteen year old girls having babies, especially from those who allegedly oppose abortion.
That community creates a “firestorm” about offering contraceptives, a “firestorm” about protecting them from HPV with a safe and effective vaccine, and now a “firestorm” about stopping their potential pregnancies with a safe and effective morning-after pill.
We see just how much value that community places on the life of the girls involved.
Not high I’d argue. The Gosnell case shows that access to quality women’s health, even in the 21st century, decreases significantly when you factor in race and class. And of course the right to lifers are jumping on this case now and erroneously claiming the lamestream media didn’t report on it, but in a post-Roe world, just as in the pre-Roe world, nice rich white Republican girls can get clean and safe abortions and everyone else would have the Gosnells to contend with.
This pill is the same thing, I am sure most Republican Senators would rather their precious daughters use this if they got raped, but God forbid poor people and people of color have the same access to it. The abortion fight, sad to say, is a sideshow from the real problem-economic inequality. That is the original virus causing every other symptom of social decay-abortion merely being one of many.
I don’t think that the advocates for this pill, other than myself, have thought through their position here very clearly.
… what I don’t understand, at all, is why would we have laws that treat minors in one way and a wholly different law that treats them in an entirely different manner? Here in Mass the age of consent is 16. That means, clearly and by statute, that a possible conception by a 15 year old means that 15 year old was raped. A crime. If any possibility at all of conception, or the need to prevent conception, then rape. If said 15 year old cannot, legally, make the decision to engage in sexual activity then that same 15 year old cannot, legally, make the decision to deal with the consequences of sexual activity. Agency is the whole and entire reason behind statutory rape laws and must extend to the consequences of the rape: laws regarding decisions don’t cease to exist after the decision happens… and we can’t simply turn away from the possible consequences. I think the same is true for abortion and that’s why many states limit abortions under the age of consent.
Furthermore, if that 15 year old obtains the ‘morning after’ pill and takes it, is that a furtherance of the rape? Or a separate crime, like ‘destruction of evidence’ or ‘conspiracy”? What if, after she was raped, she was coerced into taking the pill?
If a 15 year old girl can get the morning after pill what’s to stop a 15 year old boy for doing so and using it to coerce girls to engage in sexual activity they would otherwise not engage in?
I think, as a consequence of the laws already in place, the availability of anti-contraceptives be limited to those over the age of consent. What else follows? I don’t even understand why we’re talking about anything else. The very idea that this pill ought to be readily available to those under the age of consent seems to me to undercut the very idea and ideals that put the laws of consent into place in the first place. Is that what you want?
I agree with the laws regarding age of consent. I hated them when I was, myself, a 15 year old boy, thinking, then, that I ought to be able to put what I want where I want in an unbridled fit of horny entitlement. I very quickly shed that entitlement as I matured. That’s why the laws are there: the decisions we’d like to make at 15 are very rarely the decisions we would make as mature adults.
This does not mean that I agree with a total ban on access to anti-contraceptives for those under the age of consent. No, I merely point out that existing laws, rightly so, treat minors differently and that unfettered availability, in this instance, pokes at that rather blatantly.
starting to make a list of all the legal age restrictions in force today.
mandated school attendance, purchase of tobacco and liquor, driving, voting, joining the military, etc etc.
All in the name of protecting younger people from indulging in stupid behavior before the fact.
I work with a lot of young people who are sexually active and they commented it would be easy enough for a 12 or 13 year old to buy the morning after pill anyway.
I’m not sure what you mean by “unfettered” access. In my view, Plan B is a contraceptive — no different from condoms or, for that matter, any of the many safe and effective oral methods.
The reality is that, according to studies like this, about forty percent of adolescents have had intercourse before age 17. Keeping this behavior illegal and criminal strikes me as more in keeping with laws that once made contraception, sodomy and inter-racial sex illegal than with any enlightened view of sexuality and sexual behavior.
I suppose I fundamentally disagree with you about the laws regarding the age of consent. I’m more inclined to align any absolute age with current statistics regarding the onset of puberty. I agree that younger adolescents need to be protected from exploitation by older peers — many states have very different standards for sexual activity between peers of the same age and activity where there is significant age difference in the partners.
The rationale you offer would prohibit or restrict access to Gardasil (the HPV vaccine), contraceptives of any sort, and even access to medical care by 13-16 year olds. It is all-too-similar to the arguments against even sex education — it suggests that anything that makes sexual activity safe is tantamount to “encouraging” that activity.
The opposition to Plan B availability is grounded in the belief that it is either an abortifacient or that it encourages sexual activity. Both arguments are essentially religious in nature. In my view, such arguments are appropriately made by religious organizations, parents, or both.
Government policy to support such arguments — explicitly in the absence of medical justification in this case — therefore constitutes, in my view, a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.
… I wonder if that study, or any study, ever followed up and asked the 27 year old version of that adolescent if they would make the same decision (if decision it was…)?? When I was 15 I did plenty of things I wasn’t allowed to do. Looking back, with maturity, I can see why I should have been prevented from doing them and wished I had known then, what I know now.
Well, yeah. Up until I was about 16 every single medical decision regarding my health was made by my mother. I resented it very much until I had kids of my own. If either of my sons were to see a doctor without the consent of either me or my wife, who is their mother, I’d sue the pants off that doctor and I might be tempted to give them some need for healing themselves… I’ve been to the emergency room with my boys, and others kids, several times and they always ask who the guardian is. Children, unless in the direst need (and even then I’d hope they’d be in the company of an adult) can’t just walk into any medical facility and request treatment.
I quite support sex education so you can’t accuse me of conflating these arguments. The argument that I do make, and will continue to make is that, at some ages, no sexual activity is ever “safe” (which is the argument I make in favor of sex education). And we’ve actually gone and codified that notion into statute making it a legal distinction as well as a moral and physical one. You and I might disagree on the ages at which emotional, physical and mental health are mature enough to support active expression of sexual activity but surely we can agree on the damage done if engaged prior to that age.
Perhaps you are drifting into hyperbole, but I must comment on this excerpt (emphasis mine):
This kind of implied threat is precisely why your boys need access to a clinic where they can be treated for STDs without your knowledge or consent. The approach you are taking only exacerbates a problem that is already serious. A 16 year old boy who is showing symptoms of Gonorrhea because he did things he knows you disapprove of with a peer is already terrified of your reaction and already terrified of what’s happening to his private parts. Your threat only compounds his problems. The most likely result is that he’ll try and ignore it — the acute infection will fade, and he will face a host of far more serious problems.
I have a fundamental issue with the premise and background of your apparent attempt to impose your own learning on your children. Such attempts cannot succeed, because we are different from our children. The lessens you learned at 15 and 27 were learned in a different world and different culture from your boys — more importantly, they are not you. My own experience with my five almost-grown children (29, 26, 21, 19, 17) — and watching their mother attempt similar things to your proposal — is that such attempts are most likely to develop their skills at distancing themselves from their parents precisely when they most need wisdom.
If a legal age is to be specified, I think that puberty is where I land. I agree that the government should do all in its power to stop anyone who attempts to have sex with an eight year old (bearing in mind the difficulties in prosecuting a 10 year old).
I think that once an adolescent is mature enough to have their sexual desires, measures such as you advocate do more harm than good (when their contemplated partner is equally willing and about the same age).
I see what you are saying. Note that I only said ‘tempted’ and only towards the wayward (hypothetical) doctor not my children… though I’m sure such a dynamic as you describe might hold in other families.
I would prosecute said doctor, and be tempted to harm them, not to assuage any anger on my part but to protect my childrens health: any doctor who would see a child without parental consent or knowledge, I feel, would be an unethical doctor, a priori, and thus, at best, a crap shoot with respect to dispensing effective medical knowledge. In addition, should the infection require pharmaceuticals, how are they going to get it? Then you have to have a pharmacist who’ll see my children without my knowledge or consent. Another big red flag for me. And if they do get medicine, are they going to stick to the regimen? I’d be concerned that very few people could not keep my younger son, whose motto is ‘if some is good, more is better’, from double or triple dosing himself in an attempt to make the problem go away quicker. My older son, on the other hand, is more likely to forget to take the recommended dose at the recommended time. In this instance you propose, where they see the doctor without my knowledge or consent, and the doctor sends them on the pharmacist without my knowledge or consent, what good has been done if they don’t keep to the regimen? Implications again follow us around like wayward children looking for adequate parentage…
“I have a fundamental issue with the premise and background of your apparent attempt to impose your own learning on your children.”
If not the parent then whose learning should be imposed upon children?
Is that not what it has always meant to raise children? I assume you imposed your learning on your children.
I don’t think anyone is advocating making this behavoir illegal and criminal for adolescents. I just don’t like making it convenient either.
You seem to have missed the thrust of petr’s argument, as I understand it.
It is, today, already illegal for anyone under 16 to have sex with anyone. Period. The argument is that because having sex is illegal, unfettered access to Plan B not only isn’t necessary, but actually encourages illegal activity.
Your argument applies equally well to condoms as to PlanB. Both are medically safe forms of contraception. Shall we also require parental consent for condom purchases by those under 16?
I thought only adult-minor (ie statutory rape) interaction was illegal. However, it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. Actually, if it IS illegal then the argument against Plan B DOES actually make more sense for now. Because a condom is not a drug I’m less concerned about how and to whom it is sold since the product per se is not unsafe, but have long opposed distributing them through the schools. I do, however, stand by the right of legislators to regulate sale to minors for whatever reason they deem fit. I am prochoice for adults because in any other context adults would be making their own decisions along with their doctor. Likewise it’s pretty standard and expected that parents are involved in the medical decisions of their minor children so the same should be true in this context.
… I’m not making the ‘encouragement’ argument. You are reading that into my argument. I’m sure others make that argument. I do not. My argument is thus: if there are legitimate reasons to impose limits on behaviour then there are legitimate reasons to extend those limits to the consequences of those behaviours. I’m sure that you would not argue that a man who robbed a bank and later used the ill-gotten monies to purchase a fancy sports car should be allowed to keep the car after being caught and prosecuted for the crime. The actual act of purchasing a car, not an illegal act per se, in this hypothetical has implications greater than the act.
And I made no judgements about “necessary” in the instance of minority decisions: I never said that “plan b” was either necessary or un-necessary. But, since now pressed, I will say that ‘necessary’ is a distinction found at the end of mature deliberation which brings us back to the question of agency: If juveniles cannot, legally, make the decision to engage in sex they cannot legally make the decision as to what constitutes a ‘necessary’ response. These are the implications.
An argument could be made that if young girls engage in sex, they should be forced to use Plan B. The idea is that if you commit an illegal act such as having sex while underage, society should not have to suffer the consequences of the illegal act. This would more closely resemble one of the actual responses to bank robbery: a negation of the results (restitution, in the case of robbery).
I would suggest that this is akin to restricting access to a medication to children, the same children who cannot get so much as a Tylenol or similiar medicine in school without a parent’s note, and the aforementioned medication should be under the supervision of a doctor. Yes, unprotected intercourse is scary for a child, and I would want to be involved in any decision concerning my child’s health. This is different than condoms because it contains hormones, which may or may not be safe for developing bodies. As a mother, I would want to know what my child was taking and to be informed about the side effects so that I, as the parent, make the decision and not a scared ___ (fill in the blank) year old child. I know that the worse case scenario will be used to justify this, but taking away a parent’s right to know and decide is in my mind, too important to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Excellent
The question of whether Plan B is safe for “developing bodies” is the key scientific question that has been studied extensively — with extensive clinical trials — for years. The conclusions are consistent and have been for a very long time — there are no known medical conditions where the risks of Plan B outweigh the benefits. A typical example is the 2009 WHO publication “Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use” (“Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)”, p63).
But it does justify this. That worst case scenario is shockingly common.
The safety of the hormones involved has been demonstrated over and over — that’s what the issue is about.
This argument is akin to arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory because they contain whatever-scary-thing-you-like. Similar arguments were made against fluoridation of public water supplies, even though the evidence was and is overwhelming that there is virtually no risk and results in enormous public health benefits.
Children who are old enough to require Plan B already make their own decisions about their health. They decide whether or not to have sex. They decide whether or not to use protection. They decide whether or not to tell you.
As jconway has pointed out, the medical evidence already justifies this — and it isn’t “worst-case”, it’s what is actually happening already.
Running as Republicans in the 1st Suffolk District and talking about Drones over Massachusetts, perhaps?
substances on developing breasts? We’ve spent years debunking the chemical industry competing studies. http://www.silentspring.org/
Plan B is not a pesticide. There is nothing known to be toxic to anybody in Plan B. Unwanted pregnancy is far more dangerous than any speculated ill effects of Plan B.
Plan B has been used throughout Europe for years. It has been extensively studied. There is absolutely NO evidence of any harmful effects, while the risks associated with an unwanted pregnancy is clear, well-documented, and often devastating to the young woman involved.
It often takes decades before certain cancers and other issues manifest themselves, like DES, another wonder drug thought to be safe. Delayed manifestation is not uncommon. Sorry, Tom – this issue should be up to the parents to decide.
Of course there is some small risk associated with every medication. By the standard you propose, NO over-the-counter medications should be available. Tylenol was discovered to have harmful effects when used by patients who drink. Aspirin was discovered to have a host of potentially devastating side effects, yet it is still on the market. Why? Because the risk of all those side effects is miniscule compared with the benefits each of those medications provide.
If this is truly the reason for your opposition, then we should be restricting access to EVERY over-the-counter medication for children under sixteen (both boys and girls).
Unlike DES, a course of Plan B is taken only very sporadically. The potential risks are absolutely miniscule — no known mechanisms for harm have even been talked about, never mind demonstrated. Meanwhile, the unwanted pregnancy it prevents takes only nine months and has enormously high risks, especially for teen mothers. The abortion it prevents is less dangerous, but has its own risks that are many orders of magnitude higher than the speculative risks that MAY be associated with Plan B decades in the future.
All this is why the FDA as well as all European certification authorities have approved Plan B for over-the-counter use. Whatever motivations mitigate against it are rooted in belief and emotion — the science that says it is safe is compelling.
…but the risk of abstaining is non-existent. It may be the best course of action is to go ahead and let it be available. The more I think about it the more it occurs to me that a prescription doesn’t make sense because that implies you plan to take it. I am concerned that kids will see it as an out, but for emergencies it should be there. However, there are emotional consequences at times that there are not physical ones, but that is as far as emotion goes. I was reacting more to the knee-jerk how-dare-we-regulate-what-is-sold-to-a-minor attitude that suggested a fundamental right was being violated. Please be a little more respectful of those of us with concerns that most certainly do NOT stem from right-wing dogma.
You seem to be shifting your argument continuously.
If the basis of your concern is risk, then children under 16 should not be allowed to purchase ANY over-the-counter medication — a pharmacy is full of OTC medication that has more risk than Plan B (such as aspirin, Tylenol, Advil, and others). If your concern is sexuality, then you should proposing to restrict condoms as well as Plan B — unless, of course, you want to argue that 15 year old boys are somehow different from 16 year old girls when it comes to sexuality.
When you articulate concerns that are NOT based in right-wing dogma, then I will acknowledge that.
…is that there is nothing constitutionally wrong with restricting sale of anything to minors. I’m not going to play the game of false equivalency worthy of johnd. There is a little risk of any drug to be sure, but kids feel pain from time to time so will take the medicine you list. Condoms, OTOH are pieces of latex not the least bit dangerous per se unless you happen to be allergic to latex. If the law wants to restrict their sale to minors too that’s fine I suppose; I would defend the prorogative to do that, but last I checked one does not ingest a condom. So maybe it’s a combination of both concerns that leads me to this conclusion, but you really need to stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head about it being right-wing dogma. I have no interest in it; I have never quoted scripture to make my case; I think it’s arrogant to try to speak for what God wants and inappropriate for that to be the basis of policy in a non-theocracy such as ours.
You seem to be avoiding the logical contradictions of your argument.
If the thrust of your argument is about risk, than you should be arguing against ALL OTC medications. You cavalierly say “kids feel pain from time to time so will take the medicine you list” — from a risk perspective, those medications are demonstrably higher-risk than Plan B. Presumably you reject my observation that kids also have sex from time to time — if an OTC pain medication with known and identified risks is ok for children to buy without parent approval, then — from a risk perspective — it isn’t logical to restrict a less dangerous contraceptive.
So something other than risk must be driving your argument.
Not all right-wing dogma is religious. On the other hand, “abstinence” as the solution to teen pregnancy, STDs, and the rest most certainly IS a staple of right-wing dogma. It is also almost surely a religious posture — are we to believe that your personal choice of abstinence is NOT motivated by your religious beliefs? I’m not criticizing it, I am instead asking that you be straight with yourself and us about its origin.
I therefore stand by my assessment that from a risk perspective, there is no justification for restricting Plan B more than any other OTC medication. If we are to impose moral/religious judgement, because it is a contraceptive and therefore allows sex without fear of pregnancy, then we should apply that judgement to ALL contraceptives. Yet all of us agree that condoms should be available, and nearly all of us agree that other contraceptives should be available.
The only argument left that I can think of is the assertion that Plan B works by aborting an otherwise healthy fetus. If that’s your argument, then please be explicit about it.
I’m pretty sure I’m actually contradicting the stances of my own denomination, the United Church of Christ, on this one. I’m not aware of scriptural prohibitions on teenage sex or pregnancy and Mary was probably a teenager when she conceived Jesus. Right-wing to me in this context DOES mean religious because the other form of right-wingism is extreme libertarianism and libertarians would probably agree with you on this one. The difference between pain and sex is a choice (except if the latter is rape and I have said I favor immediate administration in that case). I’m not going to choose to have or not have a headache or backpain today. If that happens that’s my body acting on its own. Plan B is also not an abortifacient, so coming at this from an anti-abortion standpoint makes no sense either. Abstinence as a solution has been adopted, one might even say hijacked, as right-wing dogma, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the one absolute failsafe method to prevent STDs, pregnancy, etc. One who says no in the first place need not worry if the medication took, the condom broke, feelings of regret the next day, the honesty and support of their partner, etc.
Certainly abstinence, as a personal choice, is the most effective method of contraception, STD prevention, and so on — until the method fails (because the person has sex). It’s a bit like observing that Concorde was the safest plane in the air — until it crashed. It immediately became the most dangerous (in terms of deaths per passenger-mile).
While I respect your choice to observe abstinence as a personal discipline, I most emphatically disagree with your apparent desire to have the government rely on or encourage it as a matter of public policy. As you acknowledge, that posture has been hijacked by the right wing — when you advocate it, you advocate a right-wing talking-point. Hence my characterization.
I see little point in rehashing the other arguments again. In my view, you conflate the “risk” and “morality” arguments, obscuring the falsity of the first and the intrusiveness of the second. The “choice” aspect of Plan B is a moral judgement, it has nothing to do with risk. A fair coin still has a 50/50 chance of turning up heads even after five successive heads; Plan B is still safer than Tylenol no matter what the motivation for taking it is. Yet the “moral” aspect of restricting Plan B for young women is in direct conflict with the moral aspects of objecting to parental notification laws for abortion and contraception, and in direct conflict with the laws about condom availability.
From the moral perspective, surely you agree that the decision of a 15 year old boy to buy a condom is no different from that of a 15 year old girl to buy Plan B. It is fallacious to embrace the “risk” argument for aspects that support the moral choice you want to impose, while rejecting the rest of it. Plan B either is or is not safer than, say, Tylenol. It is certainly safer than pregnancy.
“It is certainly safer than pregnancy.”
Really. All the talk about abstinence and whether Plan B is or is not comparable to condoms is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. If Plan B reduces unwanted pregnancies while introducing a low level of health risk, it’s a good thing.
Tylenol is hazardous to everyone, not just drinkers. An overdose can cause permanent liver damage. It’s really easy to get that overdose, since they put it in all kinds of formulations from cough syrup to prescription pain-relief formulations.
I think acetaminophen should be prescription-only. I have gotten prescriptions that contained acetaminophen, and was never warned to limit or avoid taking the OTC medicines that contain it. If everything containing it were prescription, at least your doctor could manage how much of it you’re taking.
The risks associated with Tylenol absolutely ARE on-topic.
Although it’s more a rationalization than an argument, the claim being made is that Plan B should be restricted because it is unsafe — in spite of a raft of clinical evidence that it is safe.
The standard of “safety” that motivates restricting Plan B surely also applies to Tylenol. The acceptance of Tylenol by the opponents of Plan B reveals their moralistic, as opposed to objective, agenda.
Yet another bunch of men, trying to tell women that their concerns don’t matter and are of no consequence. How damned “progressive”. There are countless cases where “medicine” has determined a product to be safe, when in fact, it was not. The “whoops effect” is pretty common; shall I list the products that have hurt women and children through the years? With all due respect, if my child is going to be taking medication, I want to know the cost/benefit analysis before making that decision. A scared _______(fill in the blank) year old child is not equipped to make that calculus. And Tom – your comment that “children that are old enough to require Plan B already make their own decisions about their health” is so archaic in thinking – it’s akin to saying “if there’s grass on the field, she’s old enough to play the game” – crap I used to hear decades ago. I would put forth that the decision by a child to engage in unprotected sex (coerced or otherwise) at a young age means a parent needs to be a part of the decision, because clearly good decisions aren’t being made.
The question of whether or not Plan B is safe is matter of science, and science has no gender. The salient question is how the risks associated with Plan B compare to the consequences of not taking it. The answer to that question, as well, has no gender. Your construction of what you call the “whoops effect” can be used to object to ANY medication. There are parents who refuse to administer antibiotics to children with strep infections, and who refuse to administer vaccines. Society has long determined that the interests of the child, as evaluated by the best science available, trump the beliefs of the parent. Are you arguing that this posture is wrong? Shall we have a society where the beliefs and biases of religious organizations and interest groups take precedence over science in the drug approval process? I say “no” — you apparently disagree.
If you want an example of sexist rubbish, I suggest you look at availability of condoms and compare that to Plan B. Both are safe. Both are effective. Both are affordable. One empowers men. One empowers women. Funny how the one that enables men to be sexually active is readily available, while its counterpart for women is not.
Regarding my “archaic” comment, I suggest that you are living in la-la-land. The sexual identity and agency of a boy or girl is well on the way towards being established by fifteen. If a parent isn’t already part of that decision, then no amount of manipulation, pressure, and control is going to change that. To the contrary, such attempts are far more likely to deepen the wedge. The time to assert control and pressure to form a child’s decision making process is while the child is a toddler. By the time a child is twelve, such intrusive attempts cause far more harm than good.
I suggest that the most important role for a parent of a child making bad decisions is as a wise counselor who can be trusted on to help find a path out of frightening territory.
do not take this medication. It is girls who take this medication. And although you seem to worship at the altar of the FDA, the rest of us, familiar with the history, know better. Parents should be the arbiter of medication for their child – not you, and not the government. Likening this to vaccines is just horsefeathers and a very convenient construct. This is not a vaccine. This is a hormonal induction which may or may not be good for developing bodies. My comment regarding the archaic-ness of your response stands – just because the body is ready for sexual activity, doesn’t mean the mind has caught up….and drugs like this one may not necessarily be the right answer. I agree with the Obama administration on this one. You’re supposed to be pro-choice, right? This issue belongs in the choice realm of parents and guardians.
Of course it is girls who take this medication. It is also girls who get pregnant. It is girls who face the consequences of either an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy after they are denied this medication.
I object to your characterization of my stance as both sexist and archaic. We are each parents, and we are discussing choices and consequences that our daughters face. Your absence of a Y chromosome does not imbue with you some genetic superiority regarding issues of parenting, and our daughter’s absence of a Y chromosome should not restrict their choices in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
I suppose we must simply agree to disagree about this. I hope we can do so without further rude insults about gender superiority and parenting decisions.
I think being pro-choice means supporting the right of the woman to make a decision for herself, without government or I’d argue parental interference. Again, no one is impuning your motherhood or your right to raise your daughter as she sees fit. In fact, I think we can safely assume based on your comments here that you have raised your children to come to you, ask questions about this, and they wouldn’t fear asking your permission for birth control or plan B. Most mothers in Massachusetts are like that.
But my wife to be was born and raised in the Philippines and moved here in 4th grade, right around the time she’d start taking sex ed classes, and if it wasn’t for those in public schools and her interest from an early age in science and medicine she would never had known what her options are. Her parents never had ‘the talk’, it just wasn’t part of their culture. Her mother told her tampons would take away her virginity (and her mother is highly educated), they refused to let her see an OB/GYN until much later, and they did not want her taking birth control (which she needed for medical reasons, but also just in case). Her sister, now going off to college, turned to her instead of her parents knowing they’d be useless and we had to get her birth control on our insurance so her parents wouldn’t see it.
This is the reality, and it’s a reality you, as a good parent, don’t have to deal with. But not everyone has good parents or parents who have the time and education to teach their daughters to make right decisions and advocate for them. The drug is safe, saying or implying its unsafe or may have dangers is scientifically false, and the only reason Obama wants parents to make this decision is to appease the religious right which opposes autonomy for women in all reproductive health decisions at any age. Affluent and educated parents are not affected by this at all, but immigrant family’s like my fiancee’s, poorer families, persons of color, and people with less education are less likely to make this decision. Not to mention people that are religious and would blame their daughter for getting raped or getting pregnant. No parent or judge should force a child to carry a child. It’s as simple as that.