What law is it contradictory to ?
Age of consent laws. How can a girl not give consent for sex, yet be left to her own devices on making such decisions?
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?
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.
Who's to say her 18 or 20-year-old BF won't pay for it? Think that doesn't happen? Think again. :roll:
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.
Age of consent laws. How can a girl not give consent for sex, yet be left to her own devices on making such decisions?
And again, if a young child uses their parents insurance to pay for the pill, then it will show up on the EOB that the insurance company sends to the parent.
in addition, in order for the insurance to cover it, the child will have to go to the doctor to get a prescription
I have no intention of getting into another circular argument with you - we disagree, period. If you want to cover new ground, that's fine - if not, have a good day.
Run away. It's the smartest thing you have done in this thread
The FACT that anyone having their insurance pay for their MAP will have to go to the doctor and get a prescription is not a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Didn't you say that processed food and plastic containers have a greater impact on hormones?
I'm not running away from anything. However, I'm not an idiot either - I have no intention of satisfying some need you have. If you haven't the intellectual capacity to grasp the meaning of the words I posted, that's a shame, but nothing I can do about it - it's not for me to hand-hold you through them ad-nauseum. If that makes you feel as if somehow you've won, I'm happy I could bring you some joy to your day.
Anyway I already posted two articles that mentioned over the counter ( non prescription medications) are not covered in the
Affordable Health Care Act also known as Obamacare.
And I said, in my opinion, the reproductive rights lobby and their friends in the Obama administration and HHS will see to it that it changes. My prediction won't be proven unless it happens, but it's my opinion and prediction and no matter how many times you post counter arguments that it's not allowed now it doesn't change the fact that it can change in the future.
Well the Affordable Health Care Act was already passed by Congress with no provision for any over the counter drugs so if Plan B remains an over the counter drug congress would need to add an amendment to the Health Care Act to allow Plan B to covered as an over the counter drug...I just don't see that happening.
First, I'm not talking about European morality, I'm talking about health and science. To me, a decade of use (what IT guys call "in the wild") is plenty of evidence that there isn't a problem. An FDA study wouldn't be as good as simply looking at European health statistics.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?
Well I guess you should inform Obama and Sebelius that they have no power to adopt regulations under the act.
You can believe what you want. I have no doubt any insurance would cover this as a prescription and I would hope a 15 y/o rape victim would be given this pill in the ER and that insurance would cover it. That being said, I don't think anyone that walks in off the street and buys this OTC will be able to use their insurance to pay for it.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.
Because this is a medical decision, not a political one.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?
Well, As I stated much earlier in this thread President Obama and S of H Sibelius wanted to keep Plan B as a prescription drug for any person under 17. But the case went to court and the judge ruled that should be over the counter for any age.
You can believe what you want. I have no doubt any insurance would cover this as a prescription and I would hope a 15 y/o rape victim would be given this pill in the ER and that insurance would cover it. That being said, I don't think anyone that walks in off the street and buys this OTC will be able to use their insurance to pay for it.
And I said, in my opinion, the reproductive rights lobby and their friends in the Obama administration and HHS will see to it that it changes.
This is counter-factual. The Obama administration resisted classifying this as an OTC drug for minors.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, we don't know what Obama's position on the issue was but we do know that the FDA approved the morning after pill for sale over the counter to those under 17 but Sebelius vetoed that decision - it's why it ended up in court. Considering Obama's historical positions on choice issues, I think it's hard for you to claim he wanted it to remain via prescription only for those under 17.
President Obama said today that "as the father of two daughters," he supports his Health secretary's decision to block over-the-counter sales of the Plan B "morning after" birth control pill to girls under 17 years of age.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?