10 votes

Pleasure Without Responsibility: FDA Approves 'Morning After Pill' For Sale Over The Counter, Age 15 and Up

Pleasure Without Responsibility: FDA Approves 'Morning After Pill' For Sale Over The Counter, Age 15 and Up

By LAURAN NEERGAARD | AP Medical Writer | May 01, 2013 | 2:47am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a surprise twist to the decade-plus effort to ease access to morning-after pills, the government is lowering the age limit to 15 for one brand - Plan B One-Step - and will let it be sold over the counter.

Today, Plan B and its generic competition are sold behind pharmacy counters, and people must prove they're 17 or older to buy the emergency contraception without a prescription. A federal judge had ordered an end to those sales restrictions by next Monday.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_MORNING_AFTER_...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Age should be moved back to

Age should be moved back to 18 or 21, whatever it was before.
We're just going to have more pill popping teens, the government is assuming the role of the parent, and I'm sure big pharma had some hand in getting this ruling passed. I don't object to adults taking morning after pills, but this seems ridiculous, as if pregnancy is an airborne disease. Which is pretty much what we teach kids today...

Southern Agrarian

You have the right to protect and parent your child.

With that being said, if a girl gets pregnant at 15 and you as a prolife parent force her to keep it, can she then make the decision to abort in three years when she turns 18, or do you become responsible for the grandchild?

Women of any age should have full control over their own bodies.

She's not a girl at 15 choosing to have sex

she is an adult and should get married or move out. Man up, fornicating in your parents home unprotected isn't cool, it's a fool.. worse really, disrespecting her parents.

Or for the men... impregnanting 15 yeas old girls.. they should get prison time and pay a heavy fine.. like the cost of the girls wedding).

The fetus is the most innocent human life of all.. who would want to murder the most innocent human life of all?

but what happens

when their own bodies are life-support for another body?

when does that other body get a say in it's right to live?

life has to start somewhere in time. when does it? in the womb, in the birth canal, on the delivery table? if it is the latter, why all the extreme measures to save a baby in vitro? if it isn't considered a life, let it die, expel it and move on. no emotional response, no tears, no sadness or subsequent depression (how does something die if it doesn't have life? paradox right there).

but that simply isn't reality. a life isn't a life because someone decides it is a life. that's called eugenics...very Nazi-esque.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

"women of any age"

isnt that an oxymoron?

And then wouldn't your argument also extent to things such as drugs and alchohol and cigarretes and what clothes to wear(or not wear) and to brush teeth and to - well I think you get my point.

There is a reason they are considered minors.

no, not really

your argument isn't valid.

if you catch your child smoking cigarettes, you take the cigarettes away, you don't force them to continue smoking to punish them.

likewise, if you find your child has made mistakes that led to poor decisions, you rectify the situation and try to make sure it does not happen again.

your example is the same as saying, well, i found my child drinking a beer, so therefor my child has decided to be a drunk, so i will force my child to drink every day until they at 18. it makes no sense.

if forcing a child to drink every day for 3 years until they turn 18, then there is a likely chance you have destroyed that child through their entire adult life, because you have decided to alter their path.

let me put it this way. it's not your vagina.

Its also not my hand, my foot

my leg, my chest, my brain, my liver, my kidney and on and on.

Yet it IS my responsibility.

You sound like that nut job on MSNBC telling us our children our not ours - they belong to the collective.

And you jump to conclusions - I never said anything about corrective action. perhaps the point you miss is that now a child needs NO parental advise at all to make what is a monumental life decision. You assume the parental advise would be to NOT use the morning after pill.

Maybe what you miss is the prudence a parent could provide in not only advising TO take the pill, but to only do so after meeting with the child's doctor to discuss possible issues, possibly even to get blood work done for an STD(as all sexually active people should). Then maybe having a long sit down with the child and boyfriend(perhaps even with the boyfriends parents)

You see, maybe instead of letting little girls run around like wild children screaming "its my vagina I can use it how I want" we could use a bad experience to teach them responsibility and proper behavior. That may actually lead to a healthy, normal life.

Your analogy is imprecise, PRRedlin

You wrote:

"If you catch your child smoking cigarettes, you take the cigarettes away, you don't force them to continue smoking to punish them."

Your statement properly analogizes to something like the following:

If you catch your child having sex with his girlfriend/her boyfriend, you take the girlfriend/boyfriend away, you don't force them to continue having sex to punish them.

The above statement would actually have some merit, although I, personally, would often advocate having the young couple get married, rather than split up.

You, however, are attempting to analogize to something like this statement:

If you catch your child having sex with his girlfriend/her boyfriend, you take the resulting pregnancy away, you don't force them to continue suffering the consequence of the sexual activity to punish them.

While I understand why this would be your position, it does not logically follow from the analogy that you employed.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Perhaps

this will prevent unwanted pregnancies and parents who are prolife forcing their children to become parents forever?

It will not prevent pregnancy

Copulation creates children.
Children do not copulate.

If adults living under their PRO-LIFE parent's roof, make the poor choice of unprotected sex and a child is conceived, the PRO-LIFE parents absolutely have the right to stand for their beliefs in their home.. who were once children chose to become adults are free to leave the home and join the cult of death on their own terms.

Of course, there is the choice of adoption...

... and I do think it instructive that those who are "pro-choice" tend to airbrush that choice out of their hypothetical scenarios.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

personally

i think it is a far more responsible choice to end the life of an unwanted fetus, than to put the burden on someone else.

you live with the guilt yourself, you don't go putting the child on the doorstep of society so others pay for your mistakes.

You misportray what adoption is, PRRedlin

Two comments...

First, Adoption is not "putting the child on the doorstep of society." Adoption is giving a child to parents who desire that child and will love and care for him. As it is, infants are being adopted from overseas because there are not enough infants available for adoption in the United States to meet the demand (and I would argue that the prevalence of abortion has a lot to do with that).

Second, if I were to say, "I think it is a far more responsible choice to end the life of an unwanted five year old child than to put the burden on someone else," you and everyone else would, hopefully, find that statement morally horrific. I anticipate that your response will be, "A five year old child is a person with rights, but a fetus is not"; that you and I would disagree on that statement goes to the heart of what the abortion debate is all about.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

Why just the fetus? That's age discrimination.

The responsible choice is protected fornication.

A Fetus is a human life, and it's being discriminated against for it's age and inability to protect itself, by the very people who created it. It is murder to coverup an act done in the name of love (or where prostitution is legal, and it should be legal).

What guilt would Andrew Jetton have?

You gave me a flashback.. I had an appointment in a social services building about in home health care. While I'm waiting in the lobby, there's this huge scream and fight that broke out in an office and spilled into the hall, and this woman was screaming, "YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY BABY!!".. She was going off about it, and the police came, and people around me were talking about how the state takes kids. There's a huge racket in moving people. The USA is very good at it, military.. duty 2 years rotate/ 4 years.. we're trained as kids.. our police nanny syaye has no problem taking your children, many foster families work out great, and being a Catholic, I know many people who are adults, adopted by Catholic families and raised to have their own families and grateful for their adopted and foster parents.

Maybe is wasn't pleasure

and she doesn't want to be irresponsible by getting pregnant at 15.

Exercise Your Rights. If You Don't Use Them, You Will Lose Them.
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003

I would certainly agree that a woman of any age...

... who is violated, and has concerns about bearing a child, is in a very difficult situation and should receive our love, compassion, and support.

I hope that you can understand that, for those of us who believe that a human person exists from the moment of fertilization, this is not about avoiding pregnancy; rather, for us, it is about ending a human life and that, difficult though it is, the better choice is to bear the child and, possibly, to give him up for adoption.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand

"Pleasure Without Responsibility"

That's the best way to sum this up.

Also describes most 'Murrikin's...

...voting strategy:

"Collateral damages ain't my fault. I just voted for hope and change."
- or -
"Ah seen him on teevee. He's go'n whoop them ter'rists!"
- or -
"Vote YES for Kidz!"

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr