• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill


Then why does anyone pay for the pill? They can just eat processed food.
 
From what I've seen posted so far, that's what it says

Well you have to keep in mind that a lot of side effects of drugs are not realized for years.
 
Well you have to keep in mind that a lot of side effects of drugs are not realized for years.

Side effects from long term use is the result of regular use over a long period of time - a situation that is nearly impossible for teen use of MAPs
 
Well you have to keep in mind that a lot of side effects of drugs are not realized for years.
The drug has been available OTC in Europe to females of all ages for over a decade. If there was evidence of problems (at least over that time-frame) Europe would know about it and remove it or restrict it. Unless you think, as others apparently do, that European countries don't care about their citizens as much as we do?
 
I can't argue either way on the safety of use for the mother, but it's certainly terminal for the unborn child. That sucks.

Plan B is safe for an unborn child.
Plan B does not cause an abortion .
It only keeps the woman from releasing an egg ( ovulating).
If the egg has already been released it will not stop fetilization.
If a girl/ woman is already pregnant it will not harm the zygote/embryo/ fetus.
 

Funny, because it wasn't me who made the claim, it was you and Sangha who claimed that insurance companies don't cover OTC drugs and that an insurance company would never cover the costs of the morning after pill now that it was OTC for those under 17.

Thanks for pointing out I was right - I appreciate it.
 
I posted it as a clarifier exactly because I made that claim - and I still stand by it. If it's issued in a hospital it's only with a prescription, which by definition is not OTC regardless of it's availability outside a hospital. (I even used Tylenol as an example so there would be no mistake about what I was saying). This would also apply to the MAP. Or were you also objecting to doctors prescribing the MAP to those under 17?


Here's the original exchange:
So by your own admission it's "not at all similar to picking up a pill at the local pharmacy".

And then you followed it by a personal attack for even mentioning such a thing. :roll:
 
Last edited:

I wouldn't know about what goes on in Europe, nor do I really care all that much. I read that it's effects have NOT been studied on girls as young as 11. Also, do you think it's a good idea for an 11 or 12-year-old to be able to purchase this product without her parents' knowledge?
 
Didn't you say that processed food and plastic containers have a greater impact on hormones?

Well there are a lot of ways that processed food can affect hormones in women.
Processed food has been linked to earlier onset of puberty and enlarged breasts in women.
It might even make them more fertile not less fertile.
 

I would hope that girls that young would talk to their parents or another responsible adult.
Since Plan B costs about $50 I am hopeful most young girls would need to ask an adult for the money.
If they went to hospital or a clinic for the pill they will be counseled and if Plan B is kept behind the counter as it currently is the pharmacy worker would most likely instruct them that the EC pill is for emergencies only.

As an aside even though it has been legal for 17 years to buy Plan B for over a year now a lot of pharmacies still tell 17 year olds they need a prescription to buy it.
 

Isn't that what this is all about, doing away with the prescription for those under 17 so that they can use this pill without having to tell anyone, like their doctor or their parents? IMO, that is exactly what this all about. What do you think it's about Minnie?
 

It is about being able to get the medication over the counter.
We can buy Prilosec over the counter now also.
As long as the FDA feels a drug is a safe it can be sold over the counter.
 
It is about being able to get the medication over the counter.
We can buy Prilosec over the counter now also.
As long as the FDA feels a drug is a safe it can be sold over the counter.

Do you think it is a good move to allow 11 and 12-year-old girls to make decisions regarding their sexuality? If the answer is yes, then what about consent laws? Are you for doing away with age of consent laws? What about sexual abuse?

I'm sorry, this should not be allowed without parental permission. It's not just about the potential for a young child to perhaps abuse this medication, but this is just opening up a Pandora's box when it comes to sexual abuse, age of consent, all kinds of things.

It's quite disturbing that anyone would be okay with "girls of ANY age" having unlimited access to this drug for a variety of reasons.
 
The hypothetical young girl access furore is a strawman. In this scenario, an 11 year old has sex, and next morning, worried she might be pregnant, the 11 year old decides that emergency contraception is the way to go. She checks in her Hello Kitty purse to make sure she has the $50 to pay for the drug, and the pharmacist simply supplies it without noticing her tender years.
Does that sound anything like reality?

The reason anyone seeks emergency contraception with the "morning after" pill, is because of what already happened "the night before"! In the disastrous and criminal event that such a young girl has had sex, then delaying access to contraception can only compound an already appalling situation.

The original law included the young girls as a political excuse to limit an otherwise safe drug to prescription only issue, as a sop to the religious. This artificial obstruction to free access by women of all ages, has been removed, and now the argument "think of the children" is being used. Those same children can already buy more dangerous drugs than the "morning after" pill OTC.
 
Last edited:

Who's to say her 18 or 20-year-old BF won't pay for it? Think that doesn't happen? Think again. :roll:
 
Who's to say it will ever happen? Who's to say that it will happen often enough to justify denying free access by women of all ages?
 
From the FDA Information for consumers:


Now Available Without a Prescription
 

How about we end this back and forth that has far removed itself from my original comment and I'll state the gist of that comment again.

I basically said, counter to what Sangha was claiming, that the cost of the pill would not be a prohibiting issue to the under 17 year old child because under the new Obamacare HHS mandates, the morning after pill has to be included, free of any charge or co-pay, under all insurance policies and that the reproductive rights people and their friends in the Obama administration and HHS will ensure that the morning after pill will be available free of charge.

Over the counter, under the counter, whatever, my point was that the reproductive rights people will ensure that this court case, granting access to the morning after pill to under 17s without a prescription, will not be essentially voided by cost considerations. You may disagree, as is your right, but I stand by my opinion going forward.
 
From the following article:


With Plan B Ruling, Judge Signs Off On Years Of Advocacy : Shots - Health News : NPR
 
It is about being able to get the medication over the counter.
We can buy Prilosec over the counter now also.
As long as the FDA feels a drug is a safe it can be sold over the counter.

Why make it available to girls of "any age" if there is no need? Why wouldn't they still require a prescription (or AT LEAST parental consent) for girls under the age of consent? It doesn't make sense and is contradictory to our laws.
 

Well, if young girls don't need it and aren't the ones targeted, then why would they do away with the age limitation without a prescription?
 
Why make it available to girls of "any age" if there is no need? Why wouldn't they still require a prescription (or AT LEAST parental consent) for girls under the age of consent? It doesn't make sense and is contradictory to our laws.

What law is it contradictory to ?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…