# Fed. Judge: Morning-After Pills OTC For ALL Ages



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/...lable-over-the-counter-for-all-ages.html?_r=0



> A federal judge ruled Friday that the government must make the most common morning-after pill available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger. In his ruling, he also accused the federal government of âbad faithâ in dealing with the requests to make the pill universally available.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Thank goodness we'll be teaching them sex ed in kindergarten. When they get knocked up in third grade they can buy this pill and momma will never need to know.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Good. They should be given free to any woman who is drawing public assistance. 

With the budget problems the last thing we need is kids having kids they can't support.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

And the war against women wages on...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I wonder if they will cost more than generic prescription.

I know that many generic prescriptions are $4 at Walmart and other places; but the same might be $10 on the OTC shelf.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Hollowdweller said:


> Good. They should be given free to any woman who is drawing public assistance.
> 
> With the budget problems the last thing we need is kids having kids they can't support.


I would go one step further, give them long term birth control and offer sterilization.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

If they know they're pregnant, it's too late for this pill.

ETA that was supposed to quote Becky's post, for some reason the quote feature isn't working from my phone


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And the *war against women* wages on...


Dont you get tired of just *parroting* the lame rhetoric?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Thank goodness we'll be teaching them sex ed in kindergarten. When they get knocked up in third grade they can buy this pill and momma will never need to know.


Hmmmm, Maybe if momma was paying a bit more attention to what Suzie was doing last night, she wouldnt have to worry about which pills Suzie was taking this morning.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > And the *war against women* wages on...
> ...


Actually, I'm delighted. You are advocating the same control over women's reproductive rights that you did before that past election, so I'm confident that the mid-term election will be no different.

Thanks to your efforts democrats are now on course to take over congress.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Actually, I'm delighted. You are advocating the same control over women's reproductive rights that you did before that past election, so I'm confident that the mid-term election will be no different.
> 
> Thanks to your efforts democrats are now on course to take over congress.


Right, taking over congress is the important thing here. 

Lemme guess........next, it should be legal for pre-pubescent girls to marry?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Right, taking over congress is the important thing here.


The important thing here is impression that women aren't to be trusted to make reproductive decisions for themselves. If that's not the message you're trying to send then you're doing something wrong, because that's the impression women are left with.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

A 14-year-old is not a woman.

Here's what happened in the UK;
Morning After Pill Linked to Increase in STDs


> The study found that teenage conception rates showed a downward trend from a peak in 1998 (two years before the pharmacy EBC scheme started, a year before the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy) until 2003, followed by a small increase in 2004, just as the EBC scheme reached its peak.
> In terms of STIs, rate for teenagers and older women both increased consistently over the period. However, rates among teenagers increased at a faster rate and there is some evidence that the gap with rates among older women widened as the EBC schemes progressed.


Will you gloat when our girl-children are contracting AIDS and STDs?

ETA: They also did nothing to reduce the pregnancy and abortion rates, either.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I am pretty sure Ms. passed a law or are planning to pass a law that makes the morning after pill by subscription only, only taken in the presence of a Dr. with a follow up 2 weeks later.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

This isn't a war against "women," a 16 year old is NOT a woman. Rather this is a liberal war against PARENTS who have the right to know what their *14 year old* daughter is DOING and to help make their CHILD'S decision about the best way to handle their CHILD'S decisons, as the FAMILY of a CHILD of 14. Rather than be parroting some weak "war against women" lie AGAIN, how about let's be upset that CHILDREN are being encouraged to take this pill after CHILDREN have SEX and need no guidance whatsoever to take a MEDICATION. Can't wait to see what the outcome will be on a CHILD'S body when she becomes old enough to bear children of her own.

Some liberals will not be happy until the entire family unit is detroyed completely. Teach the kids to sneak behind their parents' backs. Very healthy for the family unit.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

beccachow said:


> This isn't a war against "women," a 16 year old is NOT a woman. Rather this is a liberal war against PARENTS who have the right to know what their *14 year old* daughter is DOING and to help make their CHILD'S decision about the best way to handle their CHILD'S decisons,


 
My wife works for the health dept and says it's not unusual for a mother and her teenage daughter to be setting there comparing who they screwed.

In my and her experience it's all about keeping people who have no sense of responsibility in the first place from having kids.

Oh and back when I was a kid? When things were so much more moral? Teenage girls were having more kids then than now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> a 16 year old is NOT a woman.


Hmmmm wonder reckon how they can get pregnant if they are not women? It seems to me if they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game, they ought to be old enough to buy the pill and take it if they feel the need.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm wonder reckon how they can get pregnant if they are not women? It seems to me if they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game, they ought to be old enough to buy the pill and take it if they feel the need.


I agree. If they are having unprotected sex then the parents have already been shut out of the equation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Rather this is a liberal war against PARENTS who have the right to know what their *14 year old* daughter is DOING


For my part I think the parents have an obligation to not only know.... but to control what a 14 year old is doing... in such a manner that this kind of pill is not required. If a parent cannot do that, then by all means allow the "child" to correct her own problems.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beccachow said:


> This isn't a war against "women," *a 16 year old is NOT a woman.*


The laws in both your state and mine say differently, since the age of consent for both states is 16.

******
The age of consent in Nevada is 16.

NRS 200.364 Definitions. As used in NRS 200.364 to 200.3774, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires: ... 3.âStatutory sexual seductionâ means: (a) Ordinary sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, cunnilingus or fellatio committed by a person 18 years of age or older with a person under the age of 16 years; or (b) Any other sexual penetration committed by a person 18 years of age or older with a person under the age of 16 years with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires of either of the persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are advocating the same *control over women's reproductive rights* that you did before that past election, so I'm confident that the mid-term election will be no different.


More* parroted BS.*
What does selling BC to MINORS with no prescription or parental notification have to do with "women's rights"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Hmmmm wonder reckon how they can get pregnant if they are not women? It seems to me if they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game, they ought to be old enough to buy the pill and take it if they feel the need.


So you *don't care* if your kids are sexually active once they hit puberty?
It's OK if they "feel the need"?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm wonder reckon how they can get pregnant if they are not women? It seems to me if they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game, they ought to be old enough to buy the pill and take it if they feel the need.


Would you class a 12-year-old as a 'woman'?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you *don't care* if your kids are sexually active once they hit puberty?
> It's OK if they "feel the need"?


You bet this is soooo wrong on sooo many levels. Now it just opens the gate for open sex no mater what.
You might as well have "sex rooms" in schools now, and the parents will never have to know a thing. Nice going, taking the parents out of the loop in this case is also soooooo wrong on soooo many levels as well.
Just talked to a lady that was the chaperone of a HS basketball team a very YOUNG TEAM on a trip to a basketball championship. She is even being pretty open about these things, and was APPALLED at when they got to the hotel they ALL WANTED AND GOT SEPARATE HOTEL ROOMS. 
WHY? So the Girls could get their little "boyfriends" in and HAVE SEX.
Wrong wrong wrong. The morality of the USA is going right down the provincial Sewer. This is NOT what a Christi Like Country should be allowing.
And the States and the States along should say whether or not THAT STATE wants to recognize same sex marriage also. Not the Feds.
The NEW catch phrase.
"Just DO it, take care of it tomorrow with a pill"


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Kids sneaking into someone else's hotel room on school trips is nothing new. It happened when I was that age, in the late 1970s.  And when I was in 9th grade, a 7th grader who didn't have any female friends was assigned to our room when we went on a band trip, and cancelled a few days ahead of time. We assumed that she was so stuck-up, she didn't want to be in a room with us (she was the type who didn't hang around with anybody because nobody was good enough for her) but we found out later that she was having an abortion. That didn't surprise us at all. The boyfriend fathered at least half a dozen babies who were carried to term by the time we graduated, and later married a classmate who divorced him because he beat her. And we're all middle-class and Caucasian, too.

I can't believe that very many pharmacies would keep Plan B out on the shelf anyway, because it's so expensive - about $50 a dose, and would be easy to shoplift. It can be kept in a locked case, or better yet behind the counter for ANYONE. As for the cost, many insurances do pay for it if you have a prescription.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What does selling BC to MINORS with no prescription or parental notification have to do with "women's rights"?


What are you afraid they will do with birth control pills? Get high on them?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The important thing here is impression that women aren't to be trusted to make reproductive decisions for themselves. If that's not the message you're trying to send then you're doing something wrong, because that's the impression women are left with.


So you are saying girls under girls should be trusted to make their own decisions about their lives, correct? Do you also think they should also be able to decide to drink? Do you also think they should also be able to decide to have sex with a 40 y.o. man or woman? Do you also think they should also be able to decide to be in "adult films"?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you *don't care* if your kids are sexually active once they hit puberty?
> It's OK if they "feel the need"?


You don't actually think, that kids, even Christian kids, won't engage in sexual activity, just because their parents don't approve of it?

Is a child, having an unplanned baby, a better option, than not having parental consent, for contraceptives?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm wonder reckon how they can get pregnant if they are not women? It seems to me if they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game, they ought to be old enough to buy the pill and take it if they feel the need.


And boys should be able to buy booze to make it easier for the girls to need the pill.

BTW, since you seem to think "they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game" are they old enough to make the decision to have sex with a 40 y.o. man?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The laws in both your state and mine say differently, since the age of consent for both states is 16.
> 
> ******
> The age of consent in Nevada is 16.
> ...


So if you have a 16 y.o. girlfriend you can post pictures of you and her going at online without any fear of child porn charges, after all she'd old enough to decide, right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What are you afraid they will do with birth control pills? Get high on them?


You do know the "morning after" pill was introduced for political reasons don't you? You can get the same effect using regular BC pills.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

watcher said:


> You do know the "morning after" pill was introduced for political reasons don't you? You can get the same effect using regular BC pills.


But you need a prescription for those.


----------



## doodlemom (Apr 4, 2006)

The age of consent in third world countries is much lower...Forward? I suppose all laws of morality must be done away with eventually in a Godless society. So disgusting.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doodlemom said:


> I suppose all laws of morality must be done away with eventually in a Godless society. So disgusting.


So far I havent seen too much success with the attempts to legislate morality. I think morality is much more likely to be taught by example than by legislation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Would you class a 12-year-old as a 'woman'?


Only if she is pregnant or has good reason to think she may be. I think that in itself would be the primary qualification.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you *don't care* if your kids are sexually active once they hit puberty?
> It's OK if they "feel the need"?


Please reread my posts here... I have never said anything remotely resembling that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> And boys should be able to buy booze to make it easier for the girls to need the pill.
> 
> BTW, since you seem to think "they are old enough to be making the decisions that would bring this pill into the game" are they old enough to make the decision to have sex with a 40 y.o. man?


You seem to be somewhat confused (along with some others here) as to my point. I do not think a girl.... at age 12, 14, or 16 should be making ANY of these decisions. My point has been that parents should be dealing with these issues in a proper manner so a young girl doesnt have to make these decisions. Howsomeever.... there are parents who opt out, and allow their daughters to make the decisions which then require them to make even more decisions.... like the one in question here. Do I or do I not need to swallow this pill? I agree, a 12 or 13 or 14 on up to 18 year old girl should not have been allowed to put herself in this position.... but a great many of them have irresponsible parents who let it happen. What now? (if you are THAT girl)


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

beccachow said:


> Thank goodness we'll be teaching them sex ed in kindergarten. When they get knocked up in third grade they can buy this pill and momma will never need to know.


 
Buy it, heck just put it in gum ball machines.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

So none of you ever had sex in your teens? Yeah, right. 

Back in 1973 there was several young girls wind-up pregnant at our Baptist Youth Ministry Camp we all attended for a week in the summer. So much for good morals and religious upbringing. Many of those girls and boys lives were ruined by a pregnancy they had to deal with at the age of 14-16. A morning after pill would have been a lifesaver for them. 

I personally think this morning after pill is progress. No one should have a baby at that young age....


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Progress. That's becoming a contentious word these days.

Ridicule and attack those who speak out for morality (doubly so if based on religion) and then encourage immorality by providing the means to avoid the consequences.

But every action has consequences. There will be consequences for this....not only on an individual basis but for the nation as a whole. While kids may be maturing earlier sexually/physically, they're regressing emotionally/psychologically. And personally, I lay the blame for that squarely w/ liberal attitudes and policies.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You seem to be somewhat confused (along with some others here) as to my point. I do not think a girl.... at age 12, 14, or 16 should be making ANY of these decisions. My point has been that parents should be dealing with these issues in a proper manner so a young girl doesnt have to make these decisions. Howsomeever.... there are parents who opt out, and allow their daughters to make the decisions which then require them to make even more decisions.... like the one in question here. Do I or do I not need to swallow this pill? I agree, a 12 or 13 or 14 on up to 18 year old girl should not have been allowed to put herself in this position.... but a great many of them have irresponsible parents who let it happen. What now? (if you are THAT girl)


I would have been very happy to have had those pills available OTC when I was a teenager! 

My friends and I spent a lot of time waiting and worrying. :teehee:


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Now it just opens the gate for open sex no mater what.


That gate has been open since the beginning....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

sammyd said:


> That gate has been open since the beginning....


Yep, its a bit like wild fire, its been around for quite a while, and now someone has come up with a new invention.... like a bucket of water, to put it out before the barn burns down and folks are skeered a little kid might drown. I reckon its better to let it burn. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I would have been very happy to have had those pills available OTC when I was a teenager!
> 
> My friends and I spent a lot of time waiting and worrying. :teehee:


This reminds me of my grandmothers comment back in the seventies when the discussion got around to "the pill"... her comment went something like "Oh Lordy, if they had those things back when I was young .... Ida eatem by the box!"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But you need a prescription for those.


So what's the problem with having a Dr decide which huge dose of hormones to give teenage girls?

Is it REALLY better to put them on the shelves in a store?
Is it REALLY better to let just anyone buy them?

You can't buy lots of COLD MEDICINE without asking and showing ID


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Please* reread my posts* here... I have never said anything remotely resembling that.


You seem to have no problem with them being able to buy *without any parental knowledge.*

Then in other posts you talk about a parent should have control

Then you say "A 12 year old who has sex is a woman"

So which is it?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

SageLady said:


> So none of you ever had sex in your teens? Yeah, right.
> 
> Back in 1973 there was several young girls wind-up pregnant at our Baptist Youth Ministry Camp we all attended for a week in the summer. So much for good morals and religious upbringing. Many of those girls and boys lives were ruined by a pregnancy they had to deal with at the age of 14-16. A morning after pill would have been a lifesaver for them.
> 
> I personally think this morning after pill is progress. No one should have a baby at that young age....


 I agree. 100%. BUT where we diverge on the subject is that there is no prescription...no doctor's advice, no parental consent, needed for a child. If the child needs the pill, she needs ADVICE, not more pills for the NEXT time she has unprotected sex. Hence the doctor or parental intervention.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to have no problem with them being able to buy *without any parental knowledge.*
> 
> Then in other posts you talk about a parent should have control
> 
> ...


"IT" is the fact that too many parents do not seem to have that control.... or this issue would not exist. "Shoulda woulda coulda" be in control of their kids doesnt seem to be cutting it, so when those "parents" do not maintain control that they shoulda had.... the kid needs a solution to the problem they may have created.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You can't buy lots of COLD MEDICINE without asking and showing ID


But that has nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the cold medicine when used for its intended purpose ... it's to deter people from cooking meth. 


> s it REALLY better to put them on the shelves in a store?
> Is it REALLY better to let just anyone buy them?


While neither is an optimal situation, I'd say it would be better for teenager to buy an OTC preventative than to experience an unwanted pregnancy. 

Funny, I have never heard any outcry on the subject of teenaged boys being able to purchase condoms! Now why is that?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beccachow said:


> I agree. 100%. BUT where we diverge on the subject is that there is no prescription...no doctor's advice, no parental consent, needed for a child. If the child needs the pill, she needs ADVICE, not more pills for the NEXT time she has unprotected sex. Hence the doctor or parental intervention.


Oh, you mean they need advice.... like the kind my first wife gave to our eldest girl, who had been allowed to marry at 16, and came home to mama 11 months later. She asked mama to take her to the doc so she could get on B/C.... Mama's helpful advice? "you dont need to be messin around".


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bluesky said:


> But you need a prescription for those.


Not if a judge rules otherwise.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

YH, I actually get what you are saying. It is a SAD fact that a lot of parents don't guide their children any more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But that has nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the cold medicine when used for its intended purpose ... it's to deter people from cooking meth.


Why is meth illegal? Shouldn't a 12 y.o. girl have the right to make the decision to take meth or not?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

If you take the danger from something people are more likely to do it. Pregnancy isn't the worse thing you can 'catch' from screwing around.

There are things such as:

Chancroid
Chlamydia
Gonorrhea
Granuloma inguinale
Syphilis 
Candidiasis
Viral hepatitis 
HIV
HPV 
Molluscum contagiosum
Crab louse
Scabies
Trichomoniasis


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> If you take the danger from something people are more likely to do it. Pregnancy isn't the worse thing you can 'catch' from screwing around.
> 
> There are things such as:
> 
> ...


And THIS goes hand in hand with your post.
*STDs still on the rise, report says*


> ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- In spite of prevention efforts, new cases of some of the most common sexually transmitted diseases are going up, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


 And after THIS takes place these pills go on sale for everybody at any age.
WATCH the STD's to go even Higher.
Why? You ask.
Because NOW if that pill thing goes through NO PROTECTION what so ever needs to be used. And Will NOT BE USED either. NONE.
"Just Do It".
And take the pill and things will be "ALL GOOD".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/13/std.report.cdc/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Why is meth illegal?


The same reason alcohol was illegal at one time in this country.... meddlin control freaks who think they know more about runnin other folks lives than the other folks do. There is simply no other reason for it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> Why is meth illegal? Shouldn't a 12 y.o. girl have the right to make the decision to take meth or not?


A BIG NO WAY should she or ANYBODY be given the Right use that stuff.
Why do you think they call it DOPE? No we MUST NOT legalize carp like that no way no how. We MUST NOT let this libertarian mind set EVER ever get their way in something as that.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> But that has nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the cold medicine when used for its intended purpose ... it's to deter people from cooking meth.
> 
> 
> While neither is an optimal situation, I'd say it would be better for teenager to buy an OTC preventative than to experience an unwanted pregnancy.
> ...


Condoms protect against more than just pregnancy. BC or morning-after pills do not.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> A BIG NO WAY should she or ANYBODY be given the Right use that stuff.


I will go along with 12 year olds should not be allowed to use meth.... for the same reason they should not be allowed to have indiscriminate sex. Their minds are not fully developed yet, and their parents need to be taking care of them at this point. Howsomeever, when one reaches the age of consent, all those bets are off. Give me ONE good valid reason that adults should not have the right to push a pencil up their own nose if they so desire! Or to stick a needle in their own arm and inject ANY poison into it that they want to. ONE valid reason is all I need.... I have heard multitudes of bogus arguments about this made by meddlin dogooders over the years.... and yet to have heard any valid reason that anyone should not be allowed to destroy themselves if they want to in any manner they so choose.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

How does a pharmacist know if a girl is over 16 and doesn't need an Rx? You can't ask a kid for an ID, as many don't have a driver's license at that age.....

Plus if your 13-year old is having sex and needs a morning after pill, she still needs a ride to the pharmacy and the $ to purchase it, right? So if you're so uninvolved in your kid's life that you don't know that she's sexually active AND she has someone besides you to take her to the pharmacy AND she has the $ to buy the pill, I think the problem is with the parenting more than with allowing a pharmacist to sell her the pill :shrug:

That said, I am NOT a fan of the morning after pill. Condoms are a much better choice all around, and I wonder about the effects (especially on those still developing/growing) of repeatedly taking such high hormone doses.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> A BIG NO WAY should she or ANYBODY be given the Right use that stuff.
> Why do you think they call it DOPE? No we MUST NOT legalize carp like that no way no how. We MUST NOT let this libertarian mind set EVER ever get their way in something as that.


Then you agree we have the right and power to decide what a person can do based on what is good for society. 

Now there's a problem. If we can tell someone they can not do meth, make it legally "naughty" and make it as difficult as possible to get access to because its "bad" for them can we not also tell young people there are other things which are bad for them and make it as difficult as possible for them to do?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The morning after pill is emergency birth control that costs more than a month of birth control pills or heaps of condoms. It will not be the go to answer for anyone who is having sex on a regular basis. It will however be available to those who had things go farther than they were prepared for. Now that the deed is done or the condom ripped any female able to get pregnant should be able to get this.

Most sexually active females under 17 would be able to have someone get the pill for them if they really needed it. This however allows them to make sure they get it before the effective time runs out.

I personally would not want my child to be sexually active but if I had not done my job effectively and did not have them trust me enough to come to me if they were, then I sure as well would want them to be able to prevent a pregnancy.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Buy it, heck just put it in gum ball machines.


Kinda like the way male birth control (AKA "condoms") can be purchased from vending machines? With complete anonymity and no age restrictions?

The notion that we need to keep female birth control under lock and key, because a teenaged girl can't possibly be trusted to make her own decisions, seems just a wee bit condescending and patriarchal to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> IT" is the fact that too many parents do not seem to have that control.... or this issue would not exist. "Shoulda woulda coulda" be in control of their kids doesnt seem to be cutting it, so *when those "parents" do not maintain control that they shoulda had*.... the kid needs a solution to the problem they may have created.


How many ARE maintaining that control *because* the girls know they can't GET AWAY with it without risking prenancy?

How many will LOSE control if the girls know they can run to the drug store and HIDE IT, and *no one will tell the parents*?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But that has nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the cold medicine when used for *its intended purpose *
> 
> Funny, I have never heard any outcry on the subject of teenaged boys being able to purchase condoms! Now why is that?


The "intended purpose " of a condom is* disease prevention*, and in NO WAY compares to *large doses of hormones taken internally*
Comparing the two is silly


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many ARE maintaining that control *because* the girls know they can't GET AWAY with it without risking prenancy?
> 
> How many will LOSE control if the girls know they can run to the drug store and HIDE IT, and *no one will tell the parents*?


They already have the option of buying condoms OTC in drug stores, with nobody telling their parents :shrug:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many ARE maintaining that control *because* the girls know they can't GET AWAY with it without risking prenancy?
> 
> How many will LOSE control if the girls know they can run to the drug store and HIDE IT, and *no one will tell the parents*?


That there is the problem. Trying to control instead of educating and having a respectful relationship is where all the parents I have known have gone wrong.

Fear is more often an aphrodisiac then it is a barrier.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "intended purpose " of a condom is* disease prevention*, and in NO WAY compares to *large doses of hormones taken internally*
> Comparing the two is silly


Maybe your intended purpose but I used them so I would not get pregnant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

bluemoonluck said:


> They already have the option of buying condoms OTC in drug stores, with nobody telling their parents :shrug:


 


> The notion that we need to keep female birth control under lock and key, because a teenaged girl can't possibly be trusted to make her own decisions, seems just a wee bit condescending and patriarchal to me.


You're both comparing condoms to DRUGS
I know you're smart enough to realize they are DIFFERENT

The pills were ALREADY AVAILABLE to anyone 17 and over

Will they want to start passing them out in Kindergarten next?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're both comparing condoms to DRUGS
> I know you're smart enough to realize they are DIFFERENT
> 
> The pills were ALREADY AVAILABLE to anyone 17 and over
> ...


Lots of drugs available to buy without age restrictions. I guess you will be requiring prescriptions for all of them as well.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Don't underestimate the power of girls getting what they want when they want. Every girl I have ever known knew exactly who was available to buy whatever she needed when she needed it. Saying that someone can't buy the pill until they are over 18 just makes a 14 year old make sure she knows a girl over the age limit and nowdays, kids have money. This isn't the great depression where kids don't have money. Most teens have more money than I do. They get allowances, they work, and some sell drugs..oh yeah, they do.

Not all are lily white republican daughters who live with a mom who knows her every move and a dad that isn't so busy making a living that he even recognizes his daughter. We use to laugh at the those that said "well she's a preacher's daughter", heck she was worse than we were..us little ole run of the mill Baptist non-deacon daughters.

Point is that everyone can fuss all they want. There is a black market for these things and if it isn't available to all, the girls will find a girl who is old enough, pay her, and she will buy it for them.

this just takes out the middlegirl. 

I don't agree with it, but I realize that these days, if a girl wants to have sex, she will regardless of how her parents feel. Some of my daughters acquaintances were not allowed at our house because "they were fast" and they were the daughters of the "oh my daughter would never do that" social class.

Kids are kids. They will do what they will and even if you keep an eagle eye on them, they still can manage to get laid behind the soccer field bushes when they are supposed to be in home -ec.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The morning after pill is emergency birth control that *costs more* *than a month of birth control pills* or heaps of condoms.
> It will not be the go to answer for anyone who is having sex on a regular basis.


Considering this law says they HAVE TO be placed on the shelf, and NOT behind the counter, I'm betting they will be the "go to " for *shoplifters* who will be selling them on the street, or passing them out at school


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Considering this law says they HAVE TO be placed on the shelf, and NOT behind the counter, I'm betting they will be the "go to " for *shoplifters* who will be selling them on the street, or passing them out at school


Which law are you referring to? Do you have a source for this claim?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> *Which law* are you referring to?
> Do you have* a source* for this claim?


You're *KIDDING*, right?

We're over 70 posts into a thread, and *you don't know all* *this information is in the OP?*



> A federal judge ruled Friday that the government must make the most common morning-after pill available over the counter for all ages,





> Judge Korman gave the F.D.A. 30 days to lift any age and sale restrictions on Plan B One-Step and its generic versions.
> Many groups that are part of Mr. Obamaâs political base praised the decision to make the emergency contraceptive pill more easily available, saying the change *would also make it easier for all women to obtain the pill because stores often keep it behind the counter or in pharmacy sections that may close at night. *


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're *KIDDING*, right?
> 
> We're over 70 posts into a thread, and *you don't know all* *this information is in the OP?*


Now who is not getting it. You said there was a law that said it had to be on the shelf. The law is over the counter, not at all the same thing.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're *KIDDING*, right?
> 
> We're over 70 posts into a thread, and *you don't know all* *this information is in the OP?*


I didnt see anything there about a law just a judge's ruling.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many ARE maintaining that control *because* the girls know they can't GET AWAY with it without risking prenancy?
> 
> How many will LOSE control if the girls know they can run to the drug store and HIDE IT, and *no one will tell the parents*?


I honestly dont know.... do you? How many parents are down to this last measure of "control" over their children? It seems reasonable to me to believe that parents who have done their job reasonably well up to this point would not have to rely on the unavailability of this pill to keep their kids from needing it. I raised two girls through their teenage years, they neither one had to rely on the morning after pill.... why? Because I saw to it they had their "other pill" swallered every morning before they left the house for school, and on weekends and holidays too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I didnt see anything there about* a law* just a judge's ruling


Just what do you *think* a "Judge's ruling" IS?



> You said there was a law that said it had to be on the shelf.
> The law is over the counter, not at all the same thing


I quoted and highlighted it.
I can't *make* you UNDERSTAND it



> *lift any* age and sale *restrictions*


Keeping it BEHIND THE COUNTER is a "restriction"



> *If it is approved, the pill would move out from behind pharmacistsâ counters, eliminating the requirement that women produce a prescription or prove that they are at least 17 years old to get it without a doctorâs order.*
> 
> *Instead, Plan B would be available on store shelves, along with condoms, contraceptive sponges and spermicides.*


*http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...ol-pills-groups-and-family-planning-advocates*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Because I* saw to it they had their "other pill"* swallered every morning before they left the house for school, and on weekends and holidays too.


So you decided to *get a prescription, and were fully aware.*


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Just what do you think a "Judge's ruling" IS?


Not a law as far I know feel free to educate me if I'm wrong I'm not here to argue but to learn.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you decided to *get a prescription, and were fully aware.*


Yep, and I was fully aware of a host of other things with those kids that their peers parents were blissfully in denial about... and wound up with the cutest little grand babies to raise too.  Me? I dont raise grand babies. I raised responsible adults, and they raise the grands.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just what do you *think* a "Judge's ruling" IS?
> 
> 
> I quoted and highlighted it.
> ...


I do completely understand. No restrictions does not mean that a judge can outlaw any store that is selling items that may believe will be shoplifted to be kept behind a counter or in a locked case. It only means that they may not ask for ID or restrict it do to age unless there is a law that states they can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I do completely understand


Obviously not, since you asked the question



> No restrictions does not mean that a judge can outlaw any store that is selling items that may believe will be shoplifted to be kept behind a counter or in a locked case


Could you translate that, and explain what it has to do with anything at all?



> It only means that they may not ask for ID or restrict it do to age unless there is a law that states they can.


The ruling said "ANY age and SALE restrictions", not just age or ID.

Keeping it behind the counter and making people ask for it *is a "restriction", *since it would only be available if the *PHARMACY *section is open

I showed you all this already :shrug:
Show me YOUR evidence they *can *keep it locked up now


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obviously not, since you asked the question
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, I will play your game. What question did I ask?

You show me the law that says behind the counter(and that could be the cashier counter for all you know) is a restriction. I see an article where other people have inferred that ( sort of like you like to do) but no ruling.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Well, if the judge ruled this pill to be sold "over the counter", that suggests to me that it would most likely be stocked... behind the counter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, if the judge ruled this pill to be sold "over the counter", that suggests to me that it would most likely be stocked... behind the counter.


It will be stocked behind the counter, but only because it's small & expensive. Too many small & expensive things walk out of the store.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It will be stocked behind the counter, but only because it's small & expensive. Too many small & expensive things walk out of the store.



Could be interesting. If a judge says it must have NO restrictions on it does that allow the store to place its restrictions on it? For example if the store decides it only will to sell to women who can prove, with ID and license, that they are married would that be legal?


----------



## JJohnson (Jun 7, 2012)

I agree with this being part of the liberal agenda and one more step in removing parents from child raising responsiblities just like teaching sex ed to kindergarteners. How are people supposed to learn the consequences of their actions if there is always an easy way out. They wont. Nobody can take responsibility anymore, it is always somebody elses fault. 

Well liberals dont believe children belong to and should be raised by their parents anyway.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0[/ame]


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> How are people supposed to learn the consequences of their actions if there is always an easy way out. They wont. Nobody can take responsibility anymore,


Are you really suggesting that a pregnancy is a fitting punishment for a sexual encounter?

And ... I'd say that a woman who procures the morning-after pill to eliminate the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy _is_ taking responsibility!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Are you really suggesting that a pregnancy is a fitting punishment for a sexual encounter?


Consequence, not punishment.

Nobody wants to accept the consequences of their actions anymore.....even if it means having to kill the consequence.


----------



## JJohnson (Jun 7, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Are you really suggesting that a pregnancy is a fitting punishment for a sexual encounter?
> 
> And ... I'd say that a woman who procures the morning-after pill to eliminate the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy _is_ taking responsibility!


 
What is wrong with teaching children abstinence until they are atleast old enough to understand there are consequences to their actions. Or atleast teach them if they are going to be promiscuous use protection and if they dont use protection then they have to reap the consequences of their actions. Meaning teenage pregnancy, which means no college or traveling or luxuries because they now have responsabilities to care for a child. 

If teenagers know there is always a way out and that their actions will not have any consequences they will just continue with their reckless behavior and never learn.

At the very least, the parents of underaged girls should be the ones to obtain the morning after pills and be the ones giving it to their children. Then young girls would not be able to hide their behavior from the parents as easily, and the parents would have an opportunity to sit down and talk about the situation with their child. They should not be able to purchase them, themselves while underage.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Consequently, the decision of the FDA denying the Citizen Petition is reversed, and the case is remanded to the FDA with the instruction to grant the Citizen Petition and make levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives available without a prescription and without point-of-sale or age restrictions within thirty days.


It's not clear to me what the judge means by point-of-sale restrictions because I am not a lawyer but I think it might refer to something defined in an earlier order he wrote and I doubt it means they cant keep the pills behind a counter. Simple way to find out is to wait 30 days and see where the pills are.

If we are to assume having to ask for the pill is a "point-of-sale restriction" we could extend that ad absurdum to the point that we also consider a requirement to go inside the store is also a point-of-sale restriction which would force the stores to deliver the pill anywhere on demand but of course that would require someone to call them and ask for it which would be a restriction so it really gets ridiculous. And how about this? Is a requirement to pay for the pill a point-of-sale restriction? Technically it is but I'm pretty sure its not what the judge meant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Technically it is but I'm pretty sure its not what the judge meant.


Here's the whole judgement.
Read it and tell us exactly what it means.
It's only 52 pages:
http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-contraception-lawsuit-ruling?type=document

Here's what one of the people working on getting this done had to say:



> "It's getting EC right on the store shelves, right next to the condoms and the cough medicines, where it belongs," said Kimberly Inez McGuire of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'd say that *a woman* who procures the morning-after pill to eliminate the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy _is_ taking responsibility!


This ruling is about *minor* *girls*, not women, since it was already available to anyone 17 or older


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here's the whole judgement.
> Read it and tell us exactly what it means.
> It's only 52 pages:
> http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-contraception-lawsuit-ruling?type=document
> ...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

First "we want to have abortions if we are raped or our lives are in danger"
Then "it's our bodies, we can do with it what we choose"
Then "we want to have abortions past 12 weeks"
Then "we want to deliver the baby 2/3 of the way, then slice his neck and suck out his brains and kill him in the birth canal".
Then " we want a pill to take that will abort a baby conceived during rape"
Then "we want to take this pill whenever we feel like it"
NOW LET'S MAKE THIS PILL AVAILABLE TO 12 YEAR OLD CHILDREN, OVER THE COUNTER.

Am I the ONLY one that sees the progression for what "made sense" in the first step, but now is wildly out of control?????


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> First "we want to have abortions if we are raped or our lives are in danger"
> Then "it's our bodies, we can do with it what we choose"
> Then "we want to have abortions past 12 weeks"
> Then "we want to deliver the baby 2/3 of the way, then slice his neck and suck out his brains and kill him in the birth canal".
> ...


The belief that a sexually active females have the right to plan B pills does not equate to the belief in 3rd trimester abortions. Not all of believe in your view of progression.

That is like saying because a person has sex they will automatically cheat on their spouse.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The belief that a sexually active females have the right to plan B pills does not equate to the belief in 3rd trimester abortions. Not all of believe in your view of progression.
> 
> That is like saying because a person has sex they will automatically cheat on their spouse.


The progression is from "Roe v Wade" to date.
If you look at the laws passed, in historical order, you will see the progression pattern.
That was the purpose of the post. To show the progression......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> The progression is from "Roe v Wade" to date.
> If you look at the laws passed, in historical order, you will see the progression pattern.
> That was the purpose of the post. To show the progression......


I would have thought a law ensures that available birth control for all sexually active females that prevents pregnancy would be a step in the right direction in preventing 3rd trimester abortions. I don't believe that it is a progression to something worse.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJohnson said:


> What is wrong with teaching children abstinence until......


Historically that hasnt worked out all that well. We end up with a whole lot of unwanted pregnancies when we use that method by itself. It might work for some... in isolated cases... but trying to change mom natures mind via teaching abstinence just doesnt quite cut it.


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

Plan B is not an "Abortion Pill". It's a pill that keeps pregnancy from occuring in the first place...It is the same synthetic hormone that has been used in birth control pills for 40 years given in a large, single dose to bring the blood level of the drug to the therapeutic threshold in a short period of time. The main mechanisim of action is to prevent ovulation by "tricking" the body into thinking it has already ovulated with synthetic progesterone. Once a woman is already pregnant, Plan B won't do a thing.

I think if a teen is in a position where she needs Plan B, the parents probably already missed the boat on having an open, honest discussion about sexual issues. Many parents are unapproachable on the topic..."I didn't raise you to be a fluzy so keep an apsrin between your knees"..., etc. Preaching abstinence is not effective...encouraging it is good, but if a teen goes a different route--as most do--they need proper education and unfettered access to contraception to PREVENT pregnancy. 

If you have a good relationship and non-judgmental, open communication with your kids/teens, this ruling won't effect your family in the least.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *No where* does it say that it HAS to be on the shelf. That is all media interpretation.


You read all 52 pages?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *The belief* that a sexually active females have *the right* to plan B pills does not equate to the belief in 3rd trimester abortions. *Not all of believe in your view* of progression.


*Not all belive in your view* that MINOR CHILDREN have a "right" to birth control with no medical nor PARENTAL advice.

What's WRONG with requiring a prescription for MINORS?
What's WRONG with notifying PARENTS?



> I don't believe that it is a *progression to something worse*.


The "progression" is towards letting the GOVT make decisions about children WITHOUT the *parents* being involved.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You read all 52 pages?


Yes! However the ruling is on page 51 if you need to know what the actual ruling wording is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You read all 52 pages?


Sadly I lost a lot of time that I will never get back by reading through all 52 pages. The last two are all that are really necessary because the first fifty are merely the arguments presented and data collected about the issue. The "ruling" itself is contained on the last two pages. After reading the ruling..... it is apparent to me that the media hype is once again overriding the truth of the matter. This pill is merely being downgraded from a prescription only status (due to the obvious time issues involved) to OTC status because the scientific evidence does not support its being a prescription only drug. It says nothing about requiring the pill to be displayed on store shelves or being sold to 11 and 12 year olds. The age "restriction" being discussed was lowering it from 18 to 17.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here's the whole judgement.
> Read it and tell us exactly what it means.
> It's only 52 pages:
> http://www.slideshare.net/LegalDocs/findlaw-contraception-lawsuit-ruling?type=document
> ...


Already read it. Where do you think I got the quote of the relevant part of the ruling? Like I said I'm not a lawyer so I dont entirely understand it. It appears point-of-sale restrictions refers to the requirement that it only be sold in pharmacies and health clinics so now it will be available at any store that wants to sell it. I dont even care this is just interesting to me. I guess we'll see in less than 30 days. I bet if the ruling forces stores to not keep it behind the counter they just wont sell it at all and then it will be even less available than now which should make the anti-pill people happy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *
> What's WRONG with requiring a prescription for MINORS?*


*The same thing thats wrong with requiring a prescription for adults.... its not necessary for this particular drug.... according to the science... and it needs to be "readily" available. Like no later than 72 hours after the fact. When was the last time you were able to make a doctors appt within 72 hours? For me its usually 2 to 3 weeks. I dont know about where you live, but the clock in our neighborhood would start ticking late friday night in the majority of cases... which is followed by saturday, then Sunday when most doctors offices are closed.... which brings us to monday.... and that clock is still ticking. *


----------



## JJohnson (Jun 7, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Historically that hasnt worked out all that well. We end up with a whole lot of unwanted pregnancies when we use that method by itself. It might work for some... in isolated cases... but trying to change mom natures mind via teaching abstinence just doesnt quite cut it.


 
Thats the point I made about moves like this being part of the liberal agenda and removing parenting reponsibilities from the parents. Kids these days are being raised by leftist movies, music, television, school systems that teaching sex-ed to kindegatners, where promiscious behavior is accepted and believed to be OK. There-fore if parents are teaching their children abstinence they are fighting against the leftist system. 

I know times are different from my days in school but the mere fact that this type of behavior is even acceptable at such a young age and parents not having control over drugs their children put into their bodies is beyond me.

Children can not get tatoo's while underage without a parents consent. But its OK for them to take drugs without their parents knowledge. Whats going to be next? A war on children because kids do not like the fact that their parents are the authority figure and can tell them what they can and cannot do. There is a reason why alot of kids these days are self entitled spoiled little brats who know they can get away with anything without consequence.


Bearfootfarm: "The "progression" is towards letting the GOVT make decisions about children WITHOUT the *parents* being involved." Exactly


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJohnson said:


> Thats the point I made about moves like this being part of the liberal agenda and removing parenting reponsibilities from the parents.


I dont think this particular move is removing any responsibility from parents. Had the parent actually been responsible.... their kiddos would not be needing this drug. 



JJohnson said:


> I know times are different from my days in school but the mere fact that this type of behavior is even acceptable at such a young age and parents not having control over drugs their children put into their bodies is beyond me.


Your teacher in school didnt happen to be a feller named Plato by chance? 

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Plato, 4th Century BC

This problem has obviously been around for a long long time!  



JJohnson said:


> Children can not get tatoo's while underage without a parents consent. But its OK for them to take drugs without their parents knowledge.


Are they allowed to drink a soft drink without their parents knowledge? or to watch TV? Hang out in the park without a parent standing over them every moment? Getting a tattoo is a life long decision, one that has even been fatal... infections are nasty things. Taking an aspirin for a headache... not so much. 



JJohnson said:


> There is a reason why alot of kids these days are self entitled spoiled little brats who know they can get away with anything without consequence.


Yep, I agree with you 100 percent.... but what about the well behaved, respectful kids who are perfectly normal and make a poor decision thanks to perfectly normal hormones raging around in their adolescent bodies? It happens just that way all too often. Should that child's entire future be jeopardized because they were being normal human beings?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Are you really suggesting that a pregnancy is a fitting punishment for a sexual encounter?


First off its not punishment, its a consequence for the action resulting from YOUR decision. Don't want to face the consequences? Don't make the decision or do the action.

If you KNOW there are no consequences what is there to limit your actions?





willow_girl said:


> And ... I'd say that a woman who procures the morning-after pill to eliminate the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy _is_ taking responsibility!


That's like saying taking aspirin to relieve your hangover is taking responsibility for drinking too much.

The morning after pill does nothing to prevent the myriad of diseases which can result from unprotected sex. It does nothing to prevent the psychological effects sexual activity has on immature people, especially immature females.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Historically that hasnt worked out all that well. We end up with a whole lot of unwanted pregnancies when we use that method by itself. It might work for some... in isolated cases... but trying to change mom natures mind via teaching abstinence just doesnt quite cut it.


You are saying that the percentage of young girls having kids has NOT risen in the last 50 years?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The same thing thats wrong with requiring a prescription for adults.... its not necessary for this particular drug.... according to the science... and it needs to be "readily" available. Like no later than 72 hours after the fact. When was the last time you were able to make a doctors appt within 72 hours? For me its usually 2 to 3 weeks. I dont know about where you live, but the clock in our neighborhood would start ticking late friday night in the majority of cases... which is followed by saturday, then Sunday when most doctors offices are closed.... which brings us to monday.... and that clock is still ticking.


There are at least 3 walk in clinics within 30 miles of me where I can be seen in a couple of hours any day of the week.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> The morning after pill does nothing to prevent the myriad of diseases which can result from unprotected sex. It does nothing to prevent the psychological effects sexual activity has on immature people, especially immature females.


Hmmm I see now.... we must not allow our kiddies to suffer from the psychological affects if they happen to have a sexual encounter.... but by having a potential pregnancy go unchecked, very possibly getting pregnant, and going through a childbirthing, and dealing with raising this baby will provide them with sound mental health and a bright future. I think I got it now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> There are at least 3 walk in clinics within 30 miles of me where I can be seen in a couple of hours any day of the week.


Like I said... your area may be different than mine. We have walk in clinics too, sadly their hours are usually 9 to 4:30... monday thru friday.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> You are saying that the percentage of young girls having kids has NOT risen in the last 50 years?


I would hazard a guess that the percentage of young girls having unwanted children has actually declined in the US since 1963. I havent actually checked the stats, but that'd be my hunch.

ETA: Ok, I just did a quick google search.... some interesting reading with charts and graphs here... http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

It would appear that my hunch was correct... we have been in a gradual decline of teen births since just about 1964.


----------



## JJohnson (Jun 7, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "I dont think this particular move is removing any responsibility from parents. Had the parent actually been responsible.... their kiddos would not be needing this drug. "
> 
> *We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. While there are alot of lackadaisical parents lacking in their responsiblities, I firmly believe all forms of media and the school systems are brainwashing children to believe this behavior is acceptable and is playing a big part in removing morality from children. *
> 
> ...


*Once again there are consequences for ones action. Dont commit the act if you cant face the consequences.*


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJohnson said:


> I firmly believe all forms of media and the school systems are brainwashing children to believe this behavior is acceptable and is playing a big part in removing morality from children.
> 
> *I wasnt arguing this point at all. *
> 
> ...


And there are often consequences for inaction as well. Like an unwelcome pregnancy developing because they didnt get to ingest this pill. 

Have you ever raised teenagers? Ever have them not pay attention to you? Or should I say, ever have them pay attention?


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

JJohnson said:


> Thats the point I made about moves like this being part of the liberal agenda and removing parenting reponsibilities from the parents. Kids these days are being raised by leftist movies, music, television, school systems that teaching sex-ed to kindegatners, where promiscious behavior is accepted and believed to be OK. There-fore if parents are teaching their children abstinence they are fighting against the leftist system.
> 
> I know times are different from my days in school but the mere fact that this type of behavior is even acceptable at such a young age and parents not having control over drugs their children put into their bodies is beyond me.


 
I'm sorry but times ARE different. 

I'm not sure how old you are but the percentages of teen pregnancies and teens having sex were way HIGHER in the good old days.

So far as kids getting the leftist agenda fewer of them engage in teen sex, fewer of them get pregnant and fewer smoke. LIBERAL AGENDA GREAT FOR USA!!



> CBS News) The rate of teenagers becoming mothers is declining rapidly, according to a new report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The average teen birth rate decreased 9 percent from 2009 to 2010, reaching an all time low of 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19.
> 
> 
> *That's a 44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010. There were less teenage mothers in 2010 than any year since 1946.*


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...es-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

It's interesting (aggravating, actually) that the NYT piece claims that the ruling includes those 16 and under....



> A federal judge on Friday ordered that the most common morning-after pill be made available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger.


....but the actual ruling seems to indicate 17 as the cutoff age (and that link in the 1st paragraph no longer works). 

Fish wrap journalism.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> It's interesting (aggravating, actually) that the NYT piece claims that the ruling includes those 16 and under....
> 
> ....but the actual ruling seems to indicate 17 as the cutoff age (and that link in the 1st paragraph no longer works).
> 
> Fish wrap journalism.


Yeppers, this is our agenda and we're stickin to it..... so goes the mainstream media... check and double check their "facts"! A feller can get pretty dizzy these days just trying to skim the spin.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm I see now.... we must not allow our kiddies to suffer from the psychological affects if they happen to have a sexual encounter.... but by having a potential pregnancy go unchecked, very possibly getting pregnant, and going through a childbirthing, and dealing with raising this baby will provide them with sound mental health and a bright future. I think I got it now.


No the morning after pill removes one of the consequences of sex which makes it easier. If you knew you if you stole a car if you got caught you'd spend a minimum of 3 years in prison you'd be much less likely to do it then if you knew you'd get nothing more than 6 months on probation.

If you knew there was a good chance you'd wind up getting pregnant and having to spend the next 18 years paying for it you might just think twice before dropping your pants.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Like I said... your area may be different than mine. We have walk in clinics too, sadly their hours are usually 9 to 4:30... monday thru friday.


What in the world use are those? If I show up at my doc's office at 0730 they can usually find a time to see me before noon.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Txsteader said:


> It's interesting (aggravating, actually) that the NYT piece claims that the ruling includes those 16 and under....
> 
> ....but the actual ruling seems to indicate 17 as the cutoff age (and that link in the 1st paragraph no longer works).
> 
> Fish wrap journalism.


Thats why I went and found the ruling and read it myself when nobody could answer my questions...it's always good to distrust the media. That being said I think the ruling does apply to girls under 17 unless I completely misunderstood it.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Dont you get tired of just *parroting* the lame rhetoric?


Nah, broken record...


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

We don't let children vote until they are 18, buy alcohol until 21...but we allow them to make life altering decisions...

How about we control our children, know where they are at all times and realize that until 18 they are children and parents make most of their decisions...

Now they are proposing a pill that will allow them to have unprotected sex without consequences...liberals really do think backwards...or do they even think at all?


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The same thing thats wrong with requiring a prescription for adults.... its not necessary for this particular drug.... according to the science... and it needs to be "readily" available. Like no later than 72 hours after the fact. When was the last time you were able to make a doctors appt within 72 hours? For me its usually 2 to 3 weeks. I dont know about where you live, but the clock in our neighborhood would start ticking late friday night in the majority of cases... which is followed by saturday, then Sunday when most doctors offices are closed.... which brings us to monday.... and that clock is still ticking.


They advertise 72 hours but ideally it should be taken within the first 24 HOURS after unprotected sex--the sooner the better. It works over 90% of the time if taken in the first 24hrs...after 48 hours it is only 50-60% effective and goes down from there. There really is no time to dilly-dally...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wannabechef said:


> We don't let children vote until they are 18, buy alcohol until 21...but we allow them to make life altering decisions...
> 
> How about we control our children, know where they are at all times and realize that until 18 they are children and parents make most of their decisions...
> 
> Now they are proposing a pill that will allow them to have unprotected sex without consequences...liberals really do think backwards...or do they even think at all?


I made most of the decisions pertaining to my life from 15 on with input and guidance from my parents as did my 4 siblings. We turned out not half bad. Not everyone believes that teens are helpless.

Teach and educate your children and they will amaze you.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

The reason young girls are having sex at such young ages is because we have lost the Teachings of The Lord in society. Liberals fail to see the results of their actions...it's a constant patching up of laws to fix problem brought on by allowing certain things to happen.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wannabechef said:


> The reason young girls are having sex at such young ages is because we have lost the Teachings of The Lord in society. Liberals fail to see the results of their actions...it's a constant patching up of laws to fix problem brought on by allowing certain things to happen.


I agree and disagree. The reasons they do it is they are 'looking to be loved' because they have a stinky home life and/or don't have a strong male/father figure in their lives.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I agree and disagree. The reasons they do it is they are 'looking to be loved' because they have a stinky home life and/or don't have a strong male/father figure in their lives.


Or they simply try sex and find they enjoy it very much, and have it as often as possible. Speaking from personal experience here ... :hysterical:


> What is wrong with teaching children abstinence until they are atleast old enough to understand there are consequences to their actions. Or at least teach them if they are going to be promiscuous use protection and if they dont use protection then they have to reap the consequences of their actions. Meaning teenage pregnancy, which means no college or traveling or luxuries because they now have responsabilities to care for a child.


But ... why? Abortions are safe and legal, and adoption also is an option. No girl should be saddled with a child she doesn't want ... which isn't an ideal situation for the child, either.



> If teenagers know there is always a way out and that their actions will not have any consequences they will just continue with their reckless behavior and never learn.


I'd think after shelling out the big bucks for the morning-after pill a couple of times, a young woman might consider a more affordable and reliable version of birth control!

I got my first IUD at 16 after researching my options, choosing the method I wanted, making an appointment and undergoing a pelvic exam and insertion. I paid the doctor bill myself (although my boyfriend offered). My parents didn't know about any of this, and I didn't have the support of any adults. I did it myself. I don't think this is exceptional.



> First off its not punishment, its a consequence for the action resulting from YOUR decision. Don't want to face the consequences? Don't make the decision or do the action.


You are setting up a paradigm in which the only way to escape pregnancy is to abstain from sex, but other options (birth control or abortion) are readily available. 

Which is, in reality, the way most people operate. They don't remain abstinent to avoid pregnancy; they have sex but take steps to prevent conception.



> If you KNOW there are no consequences what is there to limit your actions?


An unwanted pregnancy is not a particularly pleasant experience, and one most women seek to avoid (unless they're trying to conceive, of course).


> You are saying that the percentage of young girls having kids has NOT risen in the last 50 years?


IIRC, the year with the highest rate of teen pregnancies was 1957.


----------



## Dolly (Dec 13, 2003)

Just as an aside comment.... we hear the argument for abortion by those who say they have the right to do what they want with their own body.Fact is, it's the unborn child's body that something is being done with.But we can't say that, can we? The truth about a fetus being cut into pieces and suctioned out into a vacuum jar and incinerated or autclaved is too horrible to talk about.So instead, people make this pretend, intellectually dishonest argument and say "it's my body, I can do what I want with it".


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Or they simply try sex and find they enjoy it very much, and have it as often as possible. Speaking from personal experience here ... :hysterical:
> But ... why? Abortions are safe and legal, and adoption also is an option. No girl should be saddled with a child she doesn't want ... which isn't an ideal situation for the child, either.
> 
> I'd think after shelling out the big bucks for the morning-after pill a couple of times, a young woman might consider a more affordable and reliable version of birth control!
> ...


Unwanted pregnancies are 100% attainable...if you spend time with your children and teach them. If you don't want a child, don't have sex.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Sophia said:


> Just as an aside comment.... we hear the argument for abortion by those who say they have the right to do what they want with their own body.Fact is, it's the unborn child's body that something is being done with.But we can't say that, can we? The truth about a fetus being cut into pieces and suctioned out into a vacuum jar and incinerated or autclaved is too horrible to talk about.So instead, people make this pretend, intellectually dishonest argument and say "it's my body, I can do what I want with it".


It's much easier to forget all those horrible things, and have all the sex you want with zero consequences. After all...it's "my body".


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I agree and disagree. The reasons they do it is they are 'looking to be loved' because they have a stinky home life and/or don't have a strong male/father figure in their lives.


Actually, I don't think I came down hard enough on this patriarchal nonsense last night.

Can you imagine anyone advancing the idea that teen boys seek out sex because they have a poor home life and lack a good relationship with their mothers?

Oh please. You'd be laughed out of the room. ound: ound: ound:

In truth, teen girls have raging hormones, too, and oftentimes are eager to make the beast with two back for no better reason than because it feels good. Just like teen boys.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Unwanted pregnancies are 100% attainable...if you spend time with your children and teach them. If you don't want a child, don't have sex.


If you and your wife abstain from sex at all times except when you're seeking to conceive, that's certainly your prerogative. 

I'll do otherwise, thanks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabechef said:


> Unwanted pregnancies are 100% attainable...if you spend time with your children and teach them. If you don't want a child, don't have sex.


I think you may have meant "avoidable" instead of attainable there. (based on the context of the rest of your post) 

I agree that not having sex is a sure method of not having an unwanted pregnancy.... but its also a method that hasnt worked out well in past history. Youngsters have a habit of breaking the rules, (and so do a LOT of adults) and doing what comes natural to them.... which has indeed resulted in a LOT of unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> What in the world use are those? If I show up at my doc's office at 0730 they can usually find a time to see me before noon.


And your doctors office is open on weekends? If so... great for you, but a lot of folks end up having to wait days sometimes to get in to see their doctor, or end up in an emergency room.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabechef said:


> How about we control our children, know where they are at all times and realize that until 18 they are children and parents make most of their decisions...


Great idea.... hows that system working out for ya in your state? I think there must be something in the water here in Ky, coz the lil monsters around here pretty much do as they please once they hit about 13 or 14, and it gets even worse at 16 when they get a drivers license. Its been my experience that controlling a teenager is close kin to controlling a pocketful of lighting!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Or they simply try sex and find they enjoy it very much, and have it as often as possible. Speaking from personal experience here ... :hysterical:


For some reason I seem to remember you telling about a fairly 'rough' life in your younger years. But I could be thinking of someone else.




willow_girl said:


> But ... why? Abortions are safe and legal, and adoption also is an option.


Hum. . .hasn't there been studies showing that abortions have some long lasting physical (won't go into the mental) effects?




willow_girl said:


> No girl should be saddled with a child she doesn't want ... which isn't an ideal situation for the child, either.


How old is the child allowed to be when is the girl allowed to decide she doesn't want to be saddled with it?




willow_girl said:


> I'd think after shelling out the big bucks for the morning-after pill a couple of times, a young woman might consider a more affordable and reliable version of birth control!


You'd think after being treated for an STD a couple of times they might consider stop bed hopping but some people just don't learn.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> I agree and disagree. The reasons they do it is they are 'looking to be loved' because they have a stinky home life and/or don't have a strong male/father figure in their lives.


Theres something to that but its obviously not that simple. I remember when I was young the girls with daddy issues were the "easy" girls but the pastors daughters seemed to be the ones with the biggest daddy issues. Sometimes a father can be too "strong" in his daughter's life. Glad I dont have any daughters.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, I don't think I came down hard enough on this patriarchal nonsense last night.
> 
> Can you imagine anyone advancing the idea that teen boys seek out sex because they have a poor home life and lack a good relationship with their mothers?


Here's a flash Gorden: Boys and girls react differently. Like it or not females, in general, link sex with love. How many girls have had sex because their boyfriends hit them with the line "You'd do it if you _loved_ me." or "If you won't I'll find someone who will."?

If she doesn't feel loved at home she's going to look it for it somewhere else. Either in a boyfriend (or several) or by having a child. After all a child 'has' to love its mother.

Of all the pregnant kids I have dealt with across the entire socioeconomic scale I have NEVER met one which had a good and stable home life with a stay at home parent. 

Males who have poor home lives do act out physically but its usually in the form of violence. They also use sex but for them sex isn't about love its about power and control.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And your doctors office is open on weekends? If so... great for you, but a lot of folks end up having to wait days sometimes to get in to see their doctor, or end up in an emergency room.


That's where the walk in clinics come in. Seems to me there's a business opportunity in your area. An open early, close late 7 day a week clinic. I hear ads all the time for clinics in a city near me for them. How you don't have to miss any time at work, come in before or after work.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Here's a flash Gorden: Boys and girls react differently. Like it or not females, in general, link sex with love. How many girls have had sex because their boyfriends hit them with the line "You'd do it if you _loved_ me." or "If you won't I'll find someone who will."?
> 
> If she doesn't feel loved at home she's going to look it for it somewhere else. Either in a boyfriend (or several) or by having a child. After all a child 'has' to love its mother.
> 
> ...


Your age is showing. The younger generation is no longer tied so strongly to the notion that sex and love go hand in hand. I actually feel our society would be much better off if we would stop tying the two together so closely.

This does not mean that I think anyone should pass themselves around just because it feels good.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Great idea.... hows that system working out for ya in your state? I think there must be something in the water here in Ky, coz the lil monsters around here pretty much do as they please once they hit about 13 or 14, and it gets even worse at 16 when they get a drivers license. Its been my experience that controlling a teenager is close kin to controlling a pocketful of lighting!


I've controlled my child very well...I spend time with him and talk to him.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you may have meant "avoidable" instead of attainable there. (based on the context of the rest of your post)
> 
> I agree that not having sex is a sure method of not having an unwanted pregnancy.... but its also a method that hasnt worked out well in past history. Youngsters have a habit of breaking the rules, (and so do a LOT of adults) and doing what comes natural to them.... which has indeed resulted in a LOT of unwanted pregnancies.


I didn't have sex until 18, not because I couldn't...I just didn't want to take the risk.

So at 18 I met a girl who was already pregnant and we hit it off...still with her at 39 years old.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Your age is showing. The younger generation is no longer tied so strongly to the notion that sex and love go hand in hand. I actually feel our society would be much better off if we would stop tying the two together so closely.
> 
> This does not mean that I think anyone should pass themselves around just because it feels good.


I'll see if I can dig it up but I saw a study done in the last 5 years (I think) which shows females still connect physical 'intimacy' (holding hands to sex) with being loved.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm, Maybe if momma was paying a bit more attention to what Suzie was doing last night, she wouldnt have to worry about which pills Suzie was taking this morning.


 
The majority of teen pregnancies and teen crimes occur in the three hours after school, due to children often being unsupervised at that time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And your doctors office is *open on weekends*? If so... great for you, but a lot of folks end up having to wait days sometimes to get in to see their doctor, or end up in an emergency room.


Many walk in clinics are open, and a PA at a Wal Mart could write a prescription and fill it too
You're just *making excuses*


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> I'll see if I can dig it up but I saw a study done in the last 5 years (I think) which shows females still connect physical 'intimacy' (holding hands to sex) with being loved.


I have no doubt that many still do. I do know however that the younger generation is casting off those old chains that were meant to keep women celibate outside the marriage. Sex can be intimacy but it does not have to be love. In fact it can just be a great work out.:happy:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabechef said:


> I've controlled my child very well...I spend time with him and talk to him.


Congratulations. One down, 100 million or so to go.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TheMartianChick said:


> The majority of teen pregnancies and teen crimes occur in the three hours after school, due to children often being unsupervised at that time.


I wont argue that. And a lot of kids are pretty much unsupervised on friday and saturday nights too, in spite of the fact that their parents think they know where their kid is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> If you knew there was a good chance you'd wind up getting pregnant and having to spend the next 18 years paying for it you might just think twice before dropping your pants.


Right... and that was exactly the situation in this country before we had birth control pills readily available..... and yet since the "pill" became available, the 15 to 19 year old pregnancy rate per capita has dropped dramatically. Go figure.... :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the 15 to 19 year old pregnancy rate per capita has dropped dramatically. Go figure....


And that's WITHOUT selling it OTC to all ages
Go figure...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And that's WITHOUT selling it OTC to all ages
> Go figure...


So with this Plan B it will could go down even more. Score! In more ways than one!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And that's WITHOUT selling it OTC to all ages
> Go figure...


Every little bit helps.... wouldnt ya think? If we can reduce these pregnancies even further by selling this pill (which does not need a prescription btw) to more young women in need we could end up with even fewer babies growing up on welfare.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Here's a flash Gorden: Boys and girls react differently. Like it or not females, in general, link sex with love. How many girls have had sex because their boyfriends hit them with the line "You'd do it if you _loved_ me." or "If you won't I'll find someone who will."?
> 
> If she doesn't feel loved at home she's going to look it for it somewhere else. Either in a boyfriend (or several) or by having a child. After all a child 'has' to love its mother.
> 
> Of all the pregnant kids I have dealt with across the entire socioeconomic scale I have NEVER met one which had a good and stable home life with a stay at home parent.


Ehh. I was a teenaged girl once (a long, _long _time ago ound: ) and my best friends were ... get ready for it!! ... other teenaged girls, and I remember well how we behaved. Or misbehaved, as the case may be ... 

My two best friends (like me) both came from two-parent homes with employed fathers and stay-at-home mothers. The only real difference in our upbringings was that they both were (supposedly) good Baptist girls, while I was raised by nonbelievers; and they had siblings, while I was an only child. We all were equally randy and pretty shameless about it (although we concealed our adventures from our parents as best we could, of course). 

Ahh, to be 15 again! ound:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Every little bit helps.... wouldnt ya think? If we can reduce these pregnancies even further by selling this pill (which does not need a prescription btw) to more young women in need we could end up with even fewer babies growing up *on welfare*.


The ones on welfare have no problem getting FREE prescription drugs.
A lot of those girls are having babies on purpose


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> A lot of those girls are having babies on purpose


Not much we can do for them, I'm afraid.

But why put up obstacles for girls who _don't_ want their lives derailed by an unwanted pregnancy? 

I say anything that keeps a 15-year-old from having a baby, and being supported on the taxpayer's dime for the next 18 years, is a _good _thing!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Not much we can do* for them, I'm afraid.


It would all be stopped if they didn't get PAID for it



> But why put up *obstacles* for girls who _don't_ want their lives derailed by an unwanted pregnancy?


There are no *real* "obstacles"
They can go to a free clinic and get a PRESCRIPTION for regular BC pills at a LOWER overall cost.
That's been avalable for DECADES


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

If a girl is in need of the morning-after pill, the horse has already gotten out of the barn, so to speak. 

Regular birth control pills are not going to help in her immediate situation ... although yes, she will probably need some regular form of contraception over the long term.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

> I say anything that keeps a 15-year-old from having a baby, and being supported on the taxpayer's dime for the next 18 years, is a _good _thing!


And her offspring.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> If a girl is in need of the morning-after pill, the horse has already gotten out of the barn, so to speak.
> 
> Regular birth control pills are not going to help in her immediate situation ... although yes, she will probably need some regular form of contraception over the long term.


Not true. Taken 'correctly' they do the same thing as the morning after pill. Its been a couple of decades or so therefore I don't remember the formula.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Isn't a massive dose necessary if the BC pill isn't taken until AFTER unprotected intercourse?

I was under the assumption that the morning-after pill was just a ramped-up version of the BC pill.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Isn't a massive dose necessary if the BC pill isn't taken until AFTER unprotected intercourse?
> 
> 
> I was under the assumption that the morning-after pill was just a ramped-up version of the BC pill.


As I said its been many years but the number 4 pops into my mind. You had to take 4 pills for two or three days then stop. That would trigger menstruation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The feds will not be fighting the ruling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ase-emergency-contraception-prescription.html


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

*From some unknown person on the internet.*



*[FONT=&quot]you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT]*
 

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]*If you have to get your parentsâ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.*[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher âcute,â but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested âhomesââ¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 Â· [FONT=&quot] If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] If the governmentâs plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of Unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but canât find work â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TVâs and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more âsafeâ according to the government â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.[/FONT]
It may make you laugh :hysterical:, but you want to cry. :Bawling:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If you have to get your parentsâ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion â¦ you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.


Since when did they begin performing abortions in school?
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Has the sky fallen yet? Are kids shoplifting plan B and popping it recreationally?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> ...But why put up obstacles for girls who _don't_ want their lives derailed by an unwanted pregnancy?


Really? If they didn't want their lives 'derailed by an unwanted pregnancy' why were they sexually active? I think everyone supports men AND women's right to choose... prior to engaging in sex.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I think everyone supports men AND women's right to choose... prior to engaging in sex.


And some of us support a woman's right to choose afterwards as well.


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Really? If they didn't want their lives 'derailed by an unwanted pregnancy' why were they sexually active?


Because non-reproductive, recreational sex is fun?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Elffriend said:


> Because non-reproductive, recreational sex is fun?


So is eating cake/candy but responsible, caring parents don't allow their children to do that at will, do they?

There's another consequence of encouraging adolescent sex and that is the rise in numbers of STDs. The CDC has reported in 2011 that nearly half of all new cases of STDs is among those aged 15-24 years of age. I would expect that number to only rise.

That's just another sad testament to liberal ideology that will take its toll on society.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmmm, Maybe if momma was paying a bit more attention to what Suzie was doing last night, she wouldnt have to worry about which pills Suzie was taking this morning.


If the gov would get its nose out of the dispelling (not beating, there is a difference) of children, maybe a parent could take better care of the kids. The church says, "Give us a child until they are five and they are ours for the rest of their lives; what a child learns in those first five years are the most important, and I have known parents that are afraid to discipline their own kids in public.


----------



## I_don't_know (Sep 28, 2012)

withought they needed itllow_girl said:


> Since when did they begin performing abortions in school?


Who cares where they do it! If they do it to my kid, I want to know before they start! :grumble:


----------



## Elffriend (Mar 2, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> So is eating cake/candy but responsible, caring parents don't allow their children to do that at will, do they?


There are a lot of things that parents don't allow their kids to do, but the kids find a way to do behind their parents' backs. Not all kids are well-behaved and obedient. It isn't always a parenting failure when teenagers make a poor decision.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Elffriend said:


> There are a lot of things that parents don't allow their kids to do, but the kids find a way to do behind their parents' backs. Not all kids are well-behaved and obedient. It isn't always a parenting failure when teenagers make a poor decision.


Absolutely agree. But.......providing this type of product, along w/ what they're being taught in school under the heading of 'sex ed', along w/ what they see in the media, at least appears to _encourage_ the behavior.

I have a niece that quit school in her junior year because she was being bullied for being a virgin. Granted, there were probably other self-confidence issues, but from what I was told, the ridicule was relentless. 

There's something terribly wrong in our society when people w/ moral convictions are made to be outcasts. Along w/ what was being taught in public schools, that's another reason why parents have been moving in droves towards homeschooling. The public environment has become more hostile toward morality and religious convictions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Absolutely agree. But.......providing this type of product, along w/ what they're being taught in school under the heading of 'sex ed', along w/ what they see in the media, at least appears to _encourage_ the behavior.
> 
> I have a niece that quit school in her junior year because she was being bullied for being a virgin. Granted, there were probably other self-confidence issues, but from what I was told, the ridicule was relentless.
> 
> There's something terribly wrong in our society when people w/ moral convictions are made to be outcasts. Along w/ what was being taught in public schools, that's another reason why parents have been moving in droves towards homeschooling. The public environment has become more hostile toward morality and religious convictions.


This has nothing to do with people that choose not to have sex or promoting others to have sex. It is to deal with the consequences of those that don't have an open dialogue about it with their parents. There are lots of good parents but there are lots that don't make the grade or have children that make their own decisions. Denying them the remedies because others have made decided that they should have unwanted children because they think there should be consequences is really not their business.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> This has nothing to do with people that choose not to have sex or promoting others to have sex. It is to deal with the consequences of those that don't have an open dialogue about it with their parents. There are lots of good parents but there are lots that don't make the grade or have children that make their own decisions. Denying them the remedies because others have made decided that they should have unwanted children because they think there should be consequences is really not their business.


I bet there will be/are plenty for sources letting girls know that this option (morning-after pill) is available. What I _don't_ see is a big public campaign for abstinence, which is unarguably the better/safer choice. 

There is, without a doubt, a one-sided movement going on in this country targeting kids, particularly girls.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I bet there will be/are plenty for sources letting girls know that this option (morning-after pill) is available. What I _don't_ see is a big public campaign for abstinence, which is unarguably the better/safer choice.
> 
> There is, without a doubt, a one-sided movement going on in this country targeting kids, particularly girls.


There are and have been lots of abstinence campaigns. They have proven to not be the entire solution. I am one of those girls. Yes I was a female teenager, I have several nieces in that age range. I have sisters and cousins that have all been that age. There is no one sided movement. There is women who want other women to have every bit of information and solutions available to them so they can make an informed and complete decision on their own lives.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

you know, so the good ol days back when people behaved better than today...I was going through my grandmother;s stuff and there was a lot of flyers from the 30's about "regularity" medicines and a "womb cleaning" device for regularity (shudder). And she was a holy roller born again Christian.

same ol same ol


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)




----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> What I _don't_ see is a big public campaign for abstinence, *which is unarguably the better/safer choice.*


I dunno about that, there have been a lot of folks making the argument for abstinence for a very long time. The results have been dismal at best when compared to the use of latex and other birth control devices, including this latest pill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> There are and have been lots of abstinence campaigns. They have proven to not be the entire solution. I am one of those girls. Yes I was a female teenager, I have several nieces in that age range. I have sisters and cousins that have all been that age. *There is no one sided movement. There is women who want other women to have every bit of information and solutions available to them so they can make an informed and complete decision on their own lives.*


Actually there is a one sided movement going on, but its not directed at girls or women, or even men..... Its directed at anyone who doesnt have the same beliefs as the meddlers who feel obligated to control everyone elses lives. Freedom is what is being attacked by these fine, well intentioned folks, and I dont care if you are a man, a woman, what race you are, or what your religion is..... FREEDOM is a good thing, and well worth the fight required to hang on to it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually there is a one sided movement going on, but its not directed at girls or women, or even men..... Its directed at anyone who doesnt have the same beliefs as the meddlers who feel obligated to control everyone elses lives. Freedom is what is being attacked by these fine, well intentioned folks, and I dont care if you are a man, a woman, what race you are, or what your religion is..... FREEDOM is a good thing, and well worth the fight required to hang on to it.


Right, but what's remarkable is that liberals want children.......literally, children!.....to have the freedom to make adult decisions, while at the same time they (liberals) want to dictate what is right/wrong and good/bad for society. 

But really, is it wise to give children such freedom? There are bound to be negative consequences to such freedoms.

IMO, what you're advocating (here and in other discussions) isn't merely freedom, but closer to anarchy; no rules, no boundaries, no restrictions, anything goes.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Right, but what's remarkable is that liberals want children.......literally, children!.....to have the freedom to make adult decisions


Interestingly enough the judge who made this decision is a Reagan appointee and it was the Obama administration fighting against it. That has nothing to do with the validity of your point but I just find the juxtaposition of "normal" politics in this case fascinating.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Right, but what's remarkable is that liberals want children.......literally, children!.....to have the freedom to make adult decisions,


Seems to me they graduated to making adult decisions when they chose to have sex!


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

My grandmother died a couple of years after her last child (my dad) was born. He had always heard that she was sickly after he was born, and died later from giving birth to him. He was her fifth child. A few years ago my sister found her death certificate on the net. The cause of death was "septicemia resulting from a miscarriage". It was a huge load off of my father's shoulder, because he always, somehow, felt blamed for her death. I am of course reading between the lines, but I don't think it was a miscarriage. They lived in a dirty little mining village in WV, and times were pretty hard back then. 
Maybe if we made it illegal for young girls to have sexual intercourse, that would solve the problem.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Right, but what's remarkable is that liberals want children.......literally, children!.....to have the freedom to make adult decisions, while at the same time they (liberals) want to dictate what is right/wrong and good/bad for society.
> 
> But really, is it wise to give children such freedom? There are bound to be negative consequences to such freedoms.
> 
> IMO, what you're advocating (here and in other discussions) isn't merely freedom, but closer to anarchy; no rules, no boundaries, no restrictions, anything goes.


Anyone that has the ability to get pregnant should be able to make the decision to use whatever is available to prevent it. I would hope that this is not the go to method of choice but it should be available.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> The important thing here is impression that women aren't to be trusted to make reproductive decisions for themselves. If that's not the message you're trying to send then you're doing something wrong, because that's the impression women are left with.


 
Since when is a 5th grader a woman?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Won't this reduce the amount of low wage workers in the country? Or those willing to put on a swastica armband and do as their told? Maybe that's why amnesty is being considered? Got to think long term folks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Right, but what's remarkable is that liberals want children.......literally, children!.....to have the freedom to make adult decisions, while at the same time they (liberals) want to dictate what is right/wrong and good/bad for society.
> 
> But really, is it wise to give children such freedom? There are bound to be negative consequences to such freedoms.
> 
> *IMO, what you're advocating (here and in other discussions) isn't merely freedom, but closer to anarchy; no rules, no boundaries, no restrictions, anything goes.*


Somehow I seem to have failed to communicate my beliefs. I do not advocate a system of anarchy with no rules or boundaries. I am well aware of the need for rules to protect me from thee and vice/versa. What I object to is when some one, or a group of individuals want to create rules that protect me from me. For example, I dont think anyone should be allowed to steal from their neighbor. We have laws to prevent such behavior and I fully agree with those. However if I want to ride my motorcycle without a helmet..... its nobodys business but my own. Thank goodness my state has opted to do away with that particular meddling law in recent years, but there are other states who have not yet recognized the infringement upon individual freedom of such a law yet.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Since when is a 5th grader a woman?


Ever since she started laying down with that 12 yo neighbor boy and letting him have his way with her.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

vicker said:


> Maybe if we made it illegal for young girls to have sexual intercourse, that would solve the problem.


Good luck with that! :hysterical:


----------

