Left Wing Whining About Plan B "Morning After" Pill Is Really Annoying

If they can buy birth control without any restrictions, they are being told, by the adults in charge , "you go girl".

Guess what happened when we gave teenagers access to condoms? Pregnancy rates went down. Teenagers have always and will always have sex. It's a biological drive that won't be overcome by Sunday School and preachy parents. Giving them access to birth control mitigates the consequences to those children when they make typically poor decisions common to teenagers.

There was a time when 'saving yourself for marriage' or even for the 'right guy' actually existed.

When was this? Looking at teen pregnancy rates over the last century they peek in the '50's the period most cited by conservatives as a golden era for family values.

The rate of 15-19 year olds giving birth peaked in 1957 at a rate of nearly 1 in 10. Those 1 in 10 teenagers getting pregnant weren't getting knocked up from not having sex.

The availability of contraceptives did indeed bring down that teen pregnancy rate. This is a good thing, as would be the availability of Plan B which could help to further reduce the teen pregnancy rate in this country.

Still, I would bet

Well that settles it then.

I went to all states, except Hawaii, all the provinces and territories in the 60's and there was a lot of sex going on. Because of that we raised our daughters in an honest and open environment. No censorship, no taboo subject just open honesty. Sexual relationships started very early. We didn't stop them, but we gave recommendations. We never had a problem but too many other parents did because there was no discussion. Usually it was because religion got in the way. Plan B would be beneficial to those young ladies who have parents that do not talk to or understand them. My wife and I spent many nights with many of our daughter's friends explaining the facts of life. Something that their parents were afraid to do. If they are going to do it, at least give them an out and not a condemnation. Give them understanding and not a fear. As we found out as our girls grew up, they are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. And everyone makes mistakes and if you say you don't, you just made your biggest mistake.

Believe me, I was a teenager in the early to mid 60's. 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 year olds were not having sex . Rarely, maybe.

Wishing that doesn't make it true.

SamBoner, so your claim is that younger people in the 1950s weren't having sex as much.

Sorry, doesn't apply to the argument at all. We are dealing with a drug that didn't exist in the 1950s.

Further, women / girls are maturing at an earlier age. If you don't like that, don't blame society, blame nature itself.

Girls today mature 18 months earlier than their mothers, on average. And they mature two years earlier than their grandmothers.

Andrew 13. - Where do you get your information? Do you know what is in the drug? Haven't you heard of young women who have died? Why, then, can't a child carry in his or her possession and take an aspirin at school? It's funny how they are old enough to take this type of a drug but not old enough to dispense their own meds at school.

13.10 and 13.11 - I am in the same age and can tell you that kids were not having sex at those ages like kids are today. It is true that kids mature much earlier today. I see that when comparing my 6th grade class photo to those kids of the same age today. However, does that mean we don't try to teach our kids self-control and restraint?

We expect our kids to exercise control over any number of decisions: taking drugs, drinking, smoking. Yet, when it comes to sex, we treat them as though they are animals who have no self-control. Maybe we need to teach a connection between sex and emotion, instead of treating the act as though it were a game that you just play with anyone. It's sad when you have kids who are "friends with benefits" for the sole purpose of just having sex without any emotional connection. I think even in today's society, you will have people who tell you that the best sex they had was with their wife or someone they loved.

Where have you been for the last 30 years? I remember a news segment on our local news station when I was 11 doing a report on pregnancy rates on 11 and 12-year-old girls. It has nothing to do with "the left". It has everything to do with hormones.

It's true. Girls are reaching puberty earlier and earlier every decade. Some think it's exposure to so many chemicals through everyday life. Some say it may just be the natural course of evolution:

A new study suggests that young girls are increasingly reaching puberty earlier — between 2004 and 2006 twice as many Caucasian girls showed breast maturity at age 7 as compared to 1997. The percentage of African-American girls showing the same early sign of puberty remained constant over the same time period.

The analysis, conducted by researchers collaborating in the multicenter Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers, adds to the growing evidence that the onset of puberty in girls may be shifting earlier and earlier, possibly due to obesity or exposure to environmental chemicals.

We need to be an enlightened society and people and deal with the facts that confront us. If girls are reaching puberty while they are still minors -- and they already are well before 17-18 -- then we need to adapt to that and do common sense things like allow girls to use safe pregnancy prevention meds, and encourage them to use it.

A girl, or boy, who is brought up in a household that successfully stresses to them that they should 'wait' to have sex,

Abstinence Only does not work, never has.

Back in the day, when young girls were pregnant, they were shipped away from home to have the baby and give it up for adoption. Just because it wasn't in your face like it is today does not mean that they weren't having sex.

You cannot fix problems if you are not dealing with facts. The fact is that kids have sex even when we don't want them too and I do not want my children saddled with being a parent at a young age just because our politicians are too stupid and too stubborn to look at facts.

Holly you got that correct.

Abstinence only has never worked. That's like telling a 14 year old male not to masturbate. Ain't gonna happen.

Abstinence sounds more like a spice or a drug. It is not reality. When the urge hits, it is going to happen. God can't even prevent this.

I waited till I was older.

My sister did not.

Neither of us waited for marriage.

I'm still married to my first and only husband.

My sister is divorced from her first and only marriage.

Guess which one of us is religious.

No, we don't.

sambonner,

We do if we want to be an enlightened people instead of just pretending. Teens are going to have sex if they want to. Have been for all of human history. Denying them pregnancy prevention meds like you want isn't going to magically stop them from having sex, it's just going to result in them having sex and girls getting pregnant.

You may want them to wait for some reason, some moral or religious reason, and I respect that. But what you want isn't going to make it happen outside of your personal family.

Allowing teen girls to get this stuff is going to help prevent teen pregnancy throughout the entire country.

I think that's what it boils down to. You want teens to not have sex, I want them not not get pregnant. Those are two different agendas, and your agenda (and the agenda of the people who don't want teens to have access to these meds) isn't really an appropriate part of the argument.

We already know for a fact that teens are going to screw with or without condoms and prevention pills. Might as well just give them the things they need to do it safely. That's putting logic, reason, and safety concerns above all others. And that's what an enlightened society does.

The culture has increasingly sanctioned teen sex at younger and younger ages so now little kids think it is something that they are 'supposed' to be doing.

No offense, but you should read some history books about Rome. Spoiler: teens have been having sex for a very long time, and this is nothing new.

Of course it has.

Abstinence works for people who practice it. But most teens don't practice it. So between two methods of pregnancy prevention, these pills win and it's not even a close contest.

sambonner

Of course it has. 'Back in the day'

As I've said your wishing it doesn't make it the truth.

3.4 - Fine, let's lower the age of maturity to 15 or 12. Let's start trying all of these kids as adults when they are arrested for murder and hold them accountable for their behavior - no more excuses that they were too young to understand what they were doing.

3.12 - Don, don't know how old you are - maybe you grew up during a time when we stopped teaching right/wrong and instead said, "anything goes." If it feels good, do it; don't exercise restraint or control. But let me ask you this - if people in the 1950's or 1960's (before the pill and before abortion was legal) were not having as much sex as teens, how do you account for the fact the pregnancy rates were not as high as they have grown to be today? Were they all sterile? That's a ridiculous proposition, which means the only reason the birth rates were not as high is that people weren't having sex out of marriage to get pregnant.

3.4, 3.12 - here is a link to a govt. publication from 1984, it appears, which shows the change in rates - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6489509. I am sure if you do more research, you are going to see that the rates have not been as low as they were in the 1950's (or even the 1970's range discussed) since those years.

So, again I ask the question - how do you account for those low rates other than people were not having sex out-of-wedlock, since they didn't have the pill or abortions available? And, once those became available (pill and abortion), shouldn't the rates have dropped because now they had ways to stop the pregnancy or prevent it in the first place? Shouldn't you see an inverse relationship; i.e., once birth control became readily available, then there should have been a decline in out-of-wedlock births. Again, the only possible explanation is that it is now morally acceptable to have a baby out-of-wedlock. Plus, people don't have to be responsible for their actions - there is always someone there to take care of them. The good ole liberal, big-govt. way.

3.4, 3.12 - Oh, and I do know how to use Google, thank you very much. Probably better than you, since I was able to find more support for my position. Go this article on the CDC website and look at the chart and the trend it is showing, then tell me I am wrong in terms of the rates in the past.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

Oh, and in case you need a little help interpreting the lines rising on the right (let me use my college degree and math and stats classes to help you), you will see that the rates in 1995 were much higher than in decades before, which means that even if the rates you quote are as low as in 1995, they still far exceed past decades.

3.4 - Fine, let's lower the age of maturity to 15 or 12.

BLD,

Did you mean the age of consent? It's 16 in a large number of states and until a few years ago, was 14 in Canada. Hardly a third world country lacking common sense and civility.

no more excuses that they were too young to understand what they were doing.

You're being reactionary to the point where you've flown way off the rails. The argument is that young teens are going to have sex whether it's illegal or not, and whether their parents forbid them from doing it or not. Banning drugs like the one in question isn't going to make them stop having sex anymore than laws or parental orders will.

But allowing them access to completely safe medication that will prevent pregnancy will reduce teen pregnancy.

As has been noted by myself and a few others, there are two arguments going on here but only one is apropos. If you want to do things to control the private sexual lives of teenage girls that aren't your family, be my guest. It's hardly a new phenomena in this country. But it's utterly irreverent when the only purpose of this pill is to prevent pregnancy in behavior by young teens that they are going to take part in whether you approve or not.

3.16 - Yes, I meant that. Sorry about that. But you don't understand what that pill is. It has to be taken within a very short window of time and is not a birth control pill that prevents ovulation and the chance of pregnancy in the first place. And it is a dangerous drug; there have been deaths. It also creates the typical American view - I can do anything because there is a pill for that. It trivializes and minimizes the behavior and its consequences. I have heard of young women who had multiple abortions as their method of birth control.

As for teens taking part in this behavior, tell me something - when the pregnancy rates were lower "back in the day" before there was abortion and birth control, what accounted for that? It clearly had to be behavior, i.e., not having sex, because there were no birth control pills, plan B pills, or abortions to prevent and end pregnancies that occurred. That is the only explanation.

Sorry, I don't see why we shouldn't expect our kids not to engage in certain behavior. The left wants to indoctrinate them into little "greenies" who use nothing but crappy lightbulbs and who will sit in 60 degree homes in the winter and drive electric cars and not eat certain foods and who will expect the govt. to be the solution to everything; however, we can't try to teach our kids to control certain behaviors?

It has to be taken within a very short window of time and is not a birth control pill that prevents ovulation and the chance of pregnancy in the first place.

I think you're confused about how Plan B works. It's primary method of action as birth control IS by preventing ovulation.

And it is a dangerous drug; there have been deaths.

Can you cite a source for that? I've never heard of any deaths associated with Plan B.

when the pregnancy rates were lower "back in the day" before there was abortion and birth control....

No.

They.

Weren't.

I'm getting tired of pointing this out to you.

And people have been using birth control since Ancient Egypt. The methods are just more reliable today.

. But you don't understand what that pill is. It has to be taken within a very short window of time and is not a birth control pill that prevents ovulation and the chance of pregnancy in the first place

Wait what? It's not a birth control pill? Since when? It's pharmacologically a birth control pill and it's classified as thus. Claiming it's not a birth control pill does not make it true.

And it is a dangerous drug; there have been deaths

Pregnancy is dangerous and it causes deaths. If you think that progesterone analog is dangerous than what do you think is going to happen when the body starts producing this hormone exponentially? People who are at risk for the drug are going to be at risk during pregnancy. If they die with the drug, they will die during pregnancy.

As for teens taking part in this behavior, tell me something - when the pregnancy rates were lower "back in the day" before there was abortion and birth control, what accounted for that?

What back in the day are you talking about? When teens were married off as young as 13? Teens have been having babies since the dawn of time. If you think that's bad talk to your creator about it.

Recently, women have objected to being broodmares and have taken back their right to determine when pregnancy happens for them. " Back in the day" there was no going to college or being part of the workforce, so a shotgun wedding was the answer for these girls and the baby was born "early".

I think you're confused about how Plan B works. It's primary method of action as birth control IS by preventing ovulation.

Um, I think you're confused...its primary method of action is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Um, I think you're confused...its primary method of action is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

Here's a place for you to start some research of your own rather than simply repeating incorrect information.

Mechanism of action of emergency contraceptive pills

The relevant part:

Croxatto et al. [12,13] have argued that most, if not all, of the contraceptive effect of both combined and levonorgestrel-only ECPs can be explained by inhibited or dysfunctional ovulation. Based on their studies on human and animals, some are tempted to conclude that there is no postfertilization effect [25]. It is unlikely that this question can ever be unequivocally answered, and we therefore cannot conclude that ECPs never prevent pregnancy after fertilization. Even if there were an accurate test for fertilization, a finding that some fertilized eggs do not implant after ECPs are taken would not mean that ECPs can work after fertilization, since many if not most fertilized eggs naturally do not implant. Nevertheless, even if in some cases ECPs work by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg, these probably would be outnumbered by other cases where fertilization of an egg that would not have implanted naturally is prevented because ECPs inhibited ovulation. Therefore, on balance, ECPs probably reduce the incidence of fertilized eggs that do not implant. ECPs do not interrupt an established pregnancy, defined by medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health [26] and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [27] as beginning with implantation. Therefore, ECPs are not abortifacient.

It has to be taken within a very short window of time

BLD,

Five days is hardly what I'd call a short window of time.

and is not a birth control pill that prevents ovulation and the chance of pregnancy in the first place

That is precisely what it does: "The primary mechanism of action is to stop or disrupt ovulation; LNG ECP use may also prevent the sperm and egg from meeting."

And it is a dangerous drug; there have been deaths

Says who? The FDA says it's not dangerous. The World Health Organization says it's not dangerous:

LNG ECPs are safe for use by all women, including adolescents. Levonorgestrel, the active ingredient in LNG ECPs, has been widely used in various formulations for over 30 years and has been extensively studied in women of reproductive age. Levonorgestrel is well tolerated, is not a known allergen, leaves the body within a few days, is not addictive and has demonstrated no toxic reactions.1,2,3 LNG ECPs pose no risk of overdose and no major drug interactions or contraindications exist for LNG ECPs.3 While the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a single dose of levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) for
emergency use within 120 hours after unprotected sex, repeat use does not pose any known health risks.4,5 Even among women who used ECPs more than once in one menstrual cycle, no serious adverse outcomes were reported. LNG ECPs have been in use for several decades and current research shows no association with increased risk of cancer.7 While estrogens contained in many contraceptive pills are associated with some (very low) risk of stroke and venous thromboembolism, especially in women over 35 who smoke, no such risks are associated with levonorgestrel. […]

LNG ECPs have no serious or lasting sideeffects. Some women (fewer than one in five in studies) experience mild and shortterm side-effects, the most common being irregular menses.

. . .

It also creates the typical American view - I can do anything because there is a pill for that. It trivializes and minimizes the behavior and its consequences.

That's a social/political argument. It's not a medical or safety argument. So, you know, preach all you want. It's a square peg and a round hole.

I am very disappointed in the Obama administration and in Secretary Sebelius.

Me too! :(

You are seriously contending that The President should take counsel with his 10 year old daughter , or even the 13 year old, about birth control availability?

I am. The more information and education children have, the less of a chance of them needing Plan B.

Not to start something, but I find it far more reasonable for a President to take counsel in his 10 year old daughter than his god, which as far as I'm concerned is completely imaginary. Yet for the most part nobody seems to have a problem with that.

*That's* messed up.

The truth is that this cut off will not result in young girls getting prescriptions for Plan B. It will simply result in them not having any access at all to Plan B because by the time they can get a prescription it would be useless.

A prescription will not be needed; it will be sold as an over the counter drug as long as you're at least 17. And younger girls can walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic (or many community clinics) and get cheap or free birth control. As the morning after pill costs around $50 bucks a pop, I can't imagine a lot of 14 year olds that would have that much cash on hand anyway.

I think the decision may violate the equal protection clause because it's practical effect is that girls below 17 will be realistically denied a medically safe and sound and perfectly legal means of birth control that is available to all other women of child bearing age.

They won't be "denied"; they simply have to have an adult purchase it for them or get a prescription (it's effective up to 5 days after having unprotected sex). And of course there's the obvious rebuttal to the "all other women" comparison...a 13 year old is not a woman. As a parent, I reserve the right to decide what medications my underage child is allowed to ingest.

You are seriously contending that The President should take counsel with his 10 year old daughter , or even the 13 year old, about birth control availability?

If he waited until she got her first period he already waited too late. Until the day that people can waive a magic wand and prevent all rapes and molestations of girls under the age of 17, emergent birth control should be discussed with every adolescent female. After all 1 out of every 4 of them will be sexually abused before she reaches 18. And 2/3 of them are abused by someone they know. Removing access from these young girls is just another way to victimize them all over again.

As a parent, I reserve the right to decide what medications my underage child is allowed to ingest.

And if all parents were easy to talk to and open-minded I might not have a problem with that statement. But, since most parents that have children that are engaged in unprotected sex aren't open-minded or easy to talk to, I do.

Parents that are in favor of Plan B being available to all girls of child bearing years are also the same parents that talk to their kids very openly and very honestly. Those girls are less likely to engage in pre-teen sex and unprotected sex and therefore are less likely to need Plan B. But if they do, they also have the open communication to go to their parent and get the medical care they need. The girls that will be affected are the ones whose parents think that the parents rights are more important the child's needs.

If anyone over 17 can go in and buy it off the shelves, no prescription required, explain to me again how that will prevent those under 17 from having an older sister or friend buy it. I never bought alcohol myself until I was 21, but I certainly had no trouble getting it from 15 on. If this punt helps elect Obama instead of Romney or (shudder) Gingrich, great.

But, since most parents that have children that are engaged in unprotected sex aren't open-minded or easy to talk to, I do.

So it's only kids from closed-minded families having unprotected sex? Um, yeah...okay...

Parents that are in favor of Plan B being available to all girls of child bearing years are also the same parents that talk to their kids very openly and very honestly.

And many parents like myself, who do talk openly and honestly with their kids, are against a medication of this sort being available to minors. Most 13-14 year olds aren't aware of such things as "contra-indications".

The girls that will be affected are the ones whose parents think that the parents rights are more important the child's needs

No, they are the ones whose parents understand that they, not their minor children, are responsible for the well being and health of their children.

So it's only kids from closed-minded families having unprotected sex? Um, yeah...okay...

Look at the teen pregnancy and birth rates for states with only abstinence education. Proper education has proven to reduce these things.

And many parents like myself, who do talk openly and honestly with their kids, are against a medication of this sort being available to minors.

Then you should have no worries about your kid going behind your back to get it if you are indeed parenting as good as you think you are. Lifting the age restrictions isn't for kids lucky enough to have a parent like you since your kid wouldn't need to go behind your back to get it in the first place. Get it?

No, they are the ones whose parents understand that they, not their minor children, are responsible for the well being and health of their children.

Parents need to understand that once their kids are capable of becoming parents themselves they aren't able control their kids reproductive rights. They also need to understand the paragraph above so they won't even have to worry about their kid going behind their back to take their health and well being (in regards to reproduction at least) into their own hands.

No, they are the ones whose parents understand that they, not their minor children, are responsible for the well being and health of their children.

fedupwithliberals,

Any parent that refuses to allow their teen access to contraception, knowing they are going to have sex no matter what they are told, are not looking out for the well being of their children. They are just being naive, believing they can control things the way they used to when their kids were toddlers and real, actual children.

What they ought to do is respect the fact that once kids grow beyond a certain age, you simply can't control their behavior directly. You have to teach them to behave the right way and hope you did a good enough job that they understood why.

Kids don't grow up in a vacuum. Parents have to grow up too.

Any parent that refuses to allow their teen access to contraception, knowing they are going to have sex no matter what they are told, are not looking out for the well being of their children. They are just being naive, believing they can control things the way they used to when their kids were toddlers and real, actual children.

Who said anything about refusing "to allow their teen access to contraception"? I'm talking about unrestricted access to a pill that's used in place of having protected sex (either with the Pill or a condom, or hopefully both).

I'm talking about unrestricted access to a pill that's used in place of having protected sex (either with the Pill or a condom, or hopefully both).

Plan B tends to be just that: Backup. It's used when primary contraception (usually condoms) obviously fails (rips, spills, etc).

#4. - Do you have kids? If so, the next time they are ill, then take them to the doctor's office, drop them off, and let them make all the decisions about their care since you seem to think they are old enough to make decisions about their health.

4.10 - And you know what, the first time one of these minors gets this medication and has an adverse reaction or dies, some stupid liberal lawyer and/or govt. lawyer will sue the company, and the girl will say "but I didn't know or didn't realize" and the manufacturer will get hit with a big verdict against it. You can't have it both ways, i.e., let them make this decision but not hold them accountable for their assumption of the risks if they have a bad outcome. Unfortunately, they can't have a minor sign a release because they are a minor.

I'm talking about unrestricted access to a pill that's used in place of having protected sex (either with the Pill or a condom, or hopefully both).

Why would they go to the drugstore and spend $50 on one dose of Plan B instead of $5 for three condoms?

Shanno, because one of the three-for-five condoms broke.

because one of the three-for-five condoms broke.

I recognize that that's what it's for, particularly after having had to purchase it myself once. I was arguing against fedupwithliberals' illogical assertion that if Plan B is available OTC then youngsters will buy Plan B instead of condoms.

#6 - You are using anomalies to justify this drug? Tell, where is a 5- or 10-year-old going to get the money for the drug? How do they get to the drugstore? Oh, and tell me - are these kids even going to know what this drug is? Are they even going to understand what happened to them or that they are pregnant? Those are horrible situations but I am sorry, I don't know of a 5-year-old who is going to say after being attacked, "I need a plan b pill." They aren't going to know or understand even the sex act. Most kids of 5 don't know what sex is. Of course, maybe that's why the libs want kindergarteners to have sex ed and be taught the same things you teach a teenager.

As I'm unfamiliar with the text of the original statement (a thing that it would have been nice for you to link, incidentally), I have no idea what or why he phrased things the way he did.

But as I'm discussing what you have focused on, not what President Obama has, I'm not sure it's relevant.

To be plain, I don't think any sane person is in favor of 11 year olds having sex. I don't think, even those who wish to preserve access to birth control, think that such children are of the emotional maturity to on such a complicated activity. That would include our President.

But that said, I would rather a 16 year old have access than not.

My first experience was when I was 15 and I was relying on rumor and guesswork to determine how to do such things and not get a child in the process. I also remember that no one could have told me I wasn't ready. This doesn't mean that I think that my experience is a good example to follow. I am, however, assured that there are minors having sex.

I also am not arguing the merits of the decision or of the opposition. I can see arguments for both. Birth control has been a battleground between conservatives and liberals because of it's relation to the question of where life begins. I can't blame anyone on the left for being quick to jump when access to birth control of any sort becomes restricted for the sake of politics.

My point is that the "whining" that you are tired of might have a more reasonable basis than you suggest. And even if that were not the case, I'm not sure that your "back in my day" style of argument is the best counter to the objections.

I don't think any sane person is in favor of 11 year olds having sex.

Agreed. Of course not, but if a person thought about it for a minute, nobody needs more avenues for help that an 11 y/o pregnant girl.

...nobody needs more avenues for help that an 11 y/o pregnant girl.

Fair enough.

#8.3, 8.4 - Think about it - would an 11-year-old even know about this pill. And, the pill is not taken when they are pregnant or do you even know what it is? Is an 11-year-old going to know that after she is engaged in this act (which she might not even know what it is) that she has to rush to the drugstore to get plan b? Where is she going to get the money? How does she get to the store? Maybe we need to be more concerned with keeping our kids "kids" longer.

Think about it - would an 11-year-old even know about this pill. And, the pill is not taken when they are pregnant or do you even know what it is? Is an 11-year-old going to know that after she is engaged in this act (which she might not even know what it is) that she has to rush to the drugstore to get plan b? Where is she going to get the money? How does she get to the store?

If that is the case, then what are you worried about. 11 year olds will never get the drug.

Maybe we need to be more concerned with keeping our kids "kids" longer.

I am definitely in favor of that. If only the majority of sexually active girls under the age of 14 are not sexually active by choice.

While we are waiting for adults to leave kids alone, I will advocate for as many birth control possibilities for girls as possible.

If that is the case, then what are you worried about. 11 year olds will never get the drug.

Exactly. It's the 15 and 16yos who would need it. The ones with cars, jobs and money, who DATE.

If you tell a twelve or thirteen year old it's okay for her to go buy birth control, you are telling her that it is okay for her to have sex at that age.

No. Please do some research on sex education. It is widely known that the more information kids have the better choices they make.

'scientific' opinion notwithstanding..

Haha. I like the cute little quotes. I realize that you may not like science or facts but they exist, never the less.

This is not a 'scientific' issue, it's a social issue. If you tell a twelve or thirteen year old it's okay for her to go buy birth control, you are telling her that it is okay for her to have sex at that age.

Ever wonder why states with abstinence only sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates than states that do a proper sex education course that actually educates them?

This is not a 'scientific' issue, it's a social issue

Whew! For a second there I thought you were going to state that your opinion was factual. It's a good thing that you have admitted that "your" social "issue" has no scientific basis, no ability to be observed, measured, or equated to any reliable knowledge evident to anyone outside of your belief structure.

. If you tell a twelve or thirteen year old it's okay for her to go buy birth control, you are telling her that it is okay for her to have sex at that age

That wives tale of "contraception leading to more sex" was debunked decades ago. But I suppose it really doesn't matter to someone who admits they aren't speaking from anything evidence based.

It's not a 'scientific' issue, but if people want to ridiculously keep saying it is

Yes, it is a scientific issue along with being a health issue saying otherwise isn't going to make it any less true. It is a scientific fact that kids can and do engage in sexual activity and puberty comes with raging hormones. Anything that has to do with reproduction is a health issue.

People don't want 11 year olds or 12 year old or 13 year olds or 14 year olds or 15 year olds buying BIRTH CONTROL pills!

So what? Just ignore science, biology and health issues because some people can't accept that their kid can and will have sex if they want to?

People don't want 11 year olds or 12 year old or 13 year olds or 14 year olds or 15 year olds buying BIRTH CONTROL pills! That's it! They don't need any other . 'scientific' reason.

Actually, they don't want them to be having sex (quite justifiably).

Restricting access to birth control, however, will not prevent this, in and of itself. It will only ensure that the sexual activity young teens engage in, if they do, will come with greater risks.

And the sort of birth control we're talking about is there for when people have already had sex, whether parents want it or not, and either primary birth control fails or they realize they should have used something and didn't in the first place.

The latter situation is so very not ideal, but it happens. I would prefer we live in a world where a kid could come to their parents, tell them what they did and that the parents would then respond a reasonable and mature way. That doesn't always happen. I'm not sure that automatically justifies Plan B being over the counter for kids as young as 11, but I'm not sure the desire to pretend that the situation never occurs or that every parent will deal with said situation in a loving manner are justifications for withholding the medication.

But I'm confused here, which are you upset about: The fact that people have sex way too early, that the birth control method Plan B exists, that people are complaining about the restriction or the manner in which they are registering their complaint?

You've spoken to all four, but they are separate issues and each has a separate course of action to resolve it.

The thing that bothers me more than anything in this is that we clearly have people in this society, who tend to be more 'liberal' than not ( although that is irrelevant in a sense) who think it is fine for 11 and 12 year olds (and 13 14 and 15) to be having sex at whim.

No, we don't. There is a difference in recognizing that it's occurring and approving of it's occurrence.

There may be the anomalous person here or there, but that's not what I think you're talking about.

Their explanation for this belief is that "it cannot be stopped". I say that is bull@!$%#.

To acknowledge that it happens is just to accept the truth of the matter. What that acknowledgement doesn't do, however, is suggest it should be the norm.

Though, factually, they are correct, unless you wish to keep children on a monitor 24/7 in a small box. It's an uncommon occurrence now, but it happens, and I've never met anyone who suggested they were okay with children of that age becoming sexually active.

Someone had to have specifically intended for this product TO BE available to 10 and 11 year olds, otherwise Obama would not have mentioned those ages in his statements

It'd be nice if you'd put a link to the comments to which you keep referring. However, I think you underestimate our President's imagination.

The culture is promoting sex whenever and wherever and at any age.

That's a wild exaggeration.

I will agree that media and advertising have sexualized kids in a way that is pretty unhealthy. But even the more liberal people I know take issue with this. I seriously doubt even mothers who dress their 11 year old kids up like miniature versions of what they wished they looked like at 16 would, in any significant number, tell you they want their kids actually having sex.

Twelve and thirteen year olds are not psychologically ready for sex and why the hell are we promoting it?

If you're talking about certain advertising campaigns, I would agree with your outrage.

if you're talking about making birth control available, I don't know that I can. Access to birth control is not the same as promoting sexual activity, outside of a Trojan commercial. Especially the sort that is available as a back up in case of emergencies.

Well said, Lord Fluffy. It's not like we want our children "doing it" when they are young, but we have to recognize that it does happen and I would much rather have my daughter feeling comfortable enough with me to ask for birth control than observing a swelling belly 5 months later.

People don't want 11 year olds or 12 year old or 13 year olds or 14 year olds or 15 year olds buying BIRTH CONTROL pills! That's it! They don't need any other . 'scientific' reason.

sambonner,

Some people do, which is why it should remain a child/parent issue without the government getting involved and playing parent for all of us.

Why I find ironic is that the people most likely to approve of the government ban in this case are usually the same people who complain loudly and consistently about government stepping into our lives and making decisions on behalf of parents in nearly identical situations.

The complaint isn't always without merit: parents know best.

I'm sure they do, which is why they should make these decisions, not HHS.

Thanks, though you're answering your own question:

President Obama specifically mentioned 11 year olds? Did he make it up?

No, he was quoting someone else. And that person seems to be speculating, not citing an example of who the intended purchasers were intended to be.

Not that it makes much difference in the discussion. But again, thank you for the link.

9.2 - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

Read this article on the cdc website and find the chart that shows the increas in out-of-wedlock pregnancies since the 1940's. Hmm, it seems the inverse relationship you suggest does not exist, as despite the increases in sex education, birth control and its availability, and legality of abortions, the rate has continued to climb. The only inverse relationship I see - having been a child in the 60's and young adult in the 70's - is a decline in our moral fiber and views of teaching people right from wrong.

The reason Kathleen made this decision is that she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going to a drug store should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have an adverse effect," Mr. Obama told reporters.

sambonner,

The expert scientists and real, actual doctors at the FDA ruled it was perfectly girls that young, as evidenced by the fact that they can still take it with a prescription. Their opinion trumps hers. She's not a doctor. She's a political appointee, caving mainly the religious right in an election year.

That's all it is.

It's not a 'scientific' issue, but if people want to ridiculously keep saying it is, I can't stop them.

I agreed with you. Your article is your issue built on misconceptions and old wives tales.

It's kinda of like HHS's ruiling, the misconception that allowed them to think that a 17 year old girl is granted something magically at 12am on her birthday that she did not have when she was only 16 years and 364 days old.

People don't want 11 year olds or 12 year old or 13 year olds or 14 year olds or 15 year olds buying BIRTH CONTROL pills!

No need to shout, I know there are control freaks that think thier children are objects and not humans. But instead of yelling on the internet you should be taking that up with God, Allah, Buddha or whoever thought it was okay to give 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 year old girls the ability to get pregnant.

I had some thoughts on this topic until I saw the word "left". That word is thrown around a lot, yet is never defined and is used as a perjorative most of the time. It's an Inigo Montoya thing to me.

That word is thrown around a lot, yet is never defined

Easier to smear that way.

Usually if asked to define, they'll dodge and weave.

I stole this one from a MediaMatters poster yesterday:

Communism= slight raise in taxes on people in higher tax brackets.

Patriotism= spying on citizens, indefinite detentions, torture, unnecessary war, cronyism and corporate fraud.

If their is indeed a "left", then it would encompass the people that see and identify problems and try to correct them. Otherwise, the US is center or right of center. Soros..Drink!

Christian values, you say! You dont want thou shalt not steal, lie, murder pushed on a child????

Christian values, you say! You dont want thou shalt not steal, lie, murder pushed on a child????

1. He said "percieved" Christian values; the values of the modern, mostly Protestant influenced Religious Right tacks on a number of narrowly interpreted doctrines that have little to do with tradition and more to do with recent custom.
2. Rules against stealing, lying or doing murder are thankfully not peculiar to Christianity.

A bit touchy there. Your use of the "left" is questionable. It affords no other side to your matter. A person's sexuaity is none of my business.

"I would not feel so all alone, everybody must get stoned."

What science is involved in deciding to make birth control available to young girls?

The shear scientific fact that they are capable of reproduction...I thought that was blatantly obvious.

The shear scientific fact that they are capable of reproduction...I thought that was blatantly obvious.

It's hard to argue with that, but I'll sit back with some popcorn handy in case someone tries.

The shear scientific fact that they are capable of reproduction...I thought that was blatantly obvious.

Physical capability doesn't necessarily indicate mental, emotional or logical readiness. A 12-year old may be physically capable of driving a car, drinking alcohol or voting; however, it's not legal until they are mature enough to handle the responsibility. The same applies when dealing with medical decisions.

Physical capability doesn't necessarily indicate mental, emotional or logical readiness.

Never said it did. You can make sex before 18 illegal all you want but it won't stop teens from having it. And it doesn't change the fact that no matter what age a girl ends up pregnant her parents can not force her into giving birth or having an abortion. Nor can they force her onto birth control medication against her will.

Driving a car, drinking, and voting are nowhere comparable to reproduction

You can make sex before 18 illegal all you want but it won't stop teens from having it.

I never claimed it would, nor did I suggest we make having "sex before 18" illegal. It's the purchasing of a medication that can have potential side effects (excessive bleeding) and/or drug interactions that I'm suggesting may not be appropriate for a child.

Physical capability doesn't necessarily indicate mental, emotional or logical readiness. A 12-year old may be physically capable of driving a car, drinking alcohol or voting; however, it's not legal until they are mature enough to handle the responsibility. The same applies when dealing with medical decisions.

I never claimed it would, nor did I suggest we make having "sex before 18" illegal. It's the purchasing of a medication that can have potential side effects (excessive bleeding) and/or drug interactions that I'm suggesting may not be appropriate for a child.

Popcorn

Ok how about this. 10 year old girl is raped by her father. She's afraid to go to the authorities. Misses her period. Dear old Dad doesn't know, but who knows what he'll do if he finds out. For the sake of argument, in the mind of this going to the authorities is out of the question(Daddy will do something bad to her dear sweet 7 yr old sister). What's the more appropriate choice? Plan B or pregnancy? Choose(ps the pregnancy at that age with her body not fully developed to deliver could kill her, esp if daddy decides not to get her medical care.)

Scientists and doctors have agreed that the benefits outweigh the risks and is safe for all ages. Good enough for me.

Wonderful, - that's not the issue.

Actually, that is part of the issue about which you say people are complaining, that the decision to allow or restrict access to this form of birth control to this age group is based upon political concerns.

What it is not part of is your interpretation of the issue, i.e. that you feel access to birth control equals suggesting one should be allowed to be promiscuous.

Popcorn

Peanut Butter. Bubblegum. Gee, this is fun.

Ok how about this. 10 year old girl is raped by her father. She's afraid to go to the authorities. Misses her period. Dear old Dad doesn't know, but who knows what he'll do if he finds out. For the sake of argument, in the mind of this going to the authorities is out of the question(Daddy will do something bad to her dear sweet 7 yr old sister). What's the more appropriate choice? Plan B or pregnancy? Choose(ps the pregnancy at that age with her body not fully developed to deliver could kill her, esp if daddy decides not to get her medical care.)

"For the sake of argument" generally means that this is a one-in-a-million scenario. But we'll just ignore the fact that the odds of a 10 year old getting pregnant are extremely slim.

I'm thinking the appropriate choice isn't for a 10 year old girl who's been raped to try to find the cash to pay for Plan B, get herself to the nearest Walgreens, purchase and take the medication, without notifying a single adult that she's been assaulted and her 7 year old sister is in danger. If I were the Walgreens employee, I'd call the police for her.

I already posted a link with a list of young mothers 40+ of which were 10 and younger, 14 of which were in the US, many of which were raped. And these are just the known cases. Sure it's an extreme example, but it happens. Looking at it from an adult perspective won't help those kids, they don't have that. If they don't want anyone to know, they won't get help and they'll try to deal with it themselves, often with a higher % chance of tragic results, as opposed to allowing them to buy a relatively save pill.

I already posted a link with a list of young mothers 40+ of which were 10 and younger, 14 of which were in the US, many of which were raped. And these are just the known cases.

Your list goes back almost a century, from every corner of the globe. It's not a huge issue for 10 year olds; to argue it is requires a suspension of logic.

Funny that schools can't give out aspirin without parental consent, kids under 16 can't get their ears pierced without parental consent, but some here are arguing that a 10 year old should be able to walk into any pharmacy and buy a pill that has potential health risks (i.e. heavy bleeding), with no parental consent whatsoever.

Don't be silly, did you read what I wrote at all? I'm not saying what should happen at all. In a perfect world with perfect people nobody would be raped, let alone children. However we live in no such place. Put yourself in the place of a little girl who believes she has nobody she can turn to. Your options are plan B, coat hanger(variations thereof) or pregnancy. Do you really want the only options left for that kid to be the latter two? Sorry not all children are going to talk to an adult. No "but my child would". That's your child, not every child. Interested in only protecting your child, fine, but i want to help all children in any way they'll let me even if the only way they will is being able to buy plan B when they need it.

14 of which were in the US, many of which were raped.

The majority of sexually active girls under the age of 14 are not sexually active by choice. I can't think of a group more in need of more, not less, avenues for help.

If we had to pick between making it available to either 17 year olds OR 12 year olds, I would have to pick 12 year olds. A 12 year old pregnant girl is in far greater need of help than the 17 year old.

Just curious, but how do either of you think a 12 year old girl is going to not only come up with the cash to purchase the pill, but to get to the store to purchase it in the first place? And this is assuming that a 12 year old who's just been raped by her father (per your example) will have the wherewithall to find said cash and go immediately to the pharmacy.

There are a number of scenarios if you care to think about it but they do not matter if the drug is not available to her.

Samboner, well, then you'd be absolutely wrong.

There can be absolutely NO case in which a girl would be pregnant at that age in which case she was NOT raped.

What scientific evidence? What science is involved in deciding to make birth control available to young girls?

Doncha think you should have looked that up prior to creating an opinion?

For the sake of argument" generally means that this is a one-in-a-million scenario. But we'll just ignore the fact that the odds of a 10 year old getting pregnant are extremely slim

If the 10 year old kid doesn't have a period then she doesn't have to buy plan b anyway. If she has gotten her cycle then should should have access to all tools to protect herself.

Just curious, but how do either of you think a 12 year old girl is going to not only come up with the cash to purchase the pill, but to get to the store to purchase it in the first place?

Then why worry about it being available?

#11 - Good post but tell me, don't you see that the things you list for why teens have sex are social and moral issues that should be addressed, instead of putting a bandage on the problem? Shouldn't we teach them that sex is not just a fun activity like playing tennis; it's supposed to be an act between two people who are committed to each other. We expect them to control any number of emotions and activities; why should sex be any different? Do we equate them to animals?

I know many blast me for stating I feel that as our morals have declined over the decades, the increase in unwed pregnancies has increased, yet see this article on the cdc website; look at the chart:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

It would appear that despite more and more education and birth control becoming available, and abortions have been legal, the rate has still increased. How much more education can we have? If kids by now don't know about birth control or what sex is and what happens when you have it, then I don't know what more you can tell them. Maybe we need to go back to the days of chaperones when a girl and boy are together!

There are many ways for a minor to get birth control without her parents consent, approval or knowledge.

Thank God for Planned Parenthood!

Thank God for Planned Parenthood!

I sincerely doubt God would take the credit for PP.