Obama okay with morning-after pill sales at age 15?

reply to post by sonnny1


This is a bit disingenuous. RU-486, or mifepristone, is an abortifacient not an emergency contraceptive. While research has been done into using it as an emergency contraceptive to my knowledge no one makes a commercially available EC version. To be used as an EC the dosage would be 10 mg. Mifeprex and Mifegyne, two brand name versions, only come in a 200 mg dosage. The cases where complications occurred involved a much higher dosage and even then complications only occurred in 0.15% of cases. So why bring this up in a conversation regarding emergency contraceptives, not abortifacients?

reply to post by Xcalibur254

The cases where complications occurred involved a much higher dosage and even then complications only occurred in 0.15% of cases. So why bring this up in a conversation regarding emergency contraceptives, not abortifacients?

Do by chance have a link to that study, so we can all see what size group was being measured to come out with a 0.15% for bad outcomes? In a group of 1,000, that's not too many perhaps. In a group across a national population likely to make use of the end product? Well.. I'd just love to be able to read where that all came from and what the methods were to generate it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It's from a postmarketing summary done in April of 2011. Of the 1.52 million women who had been prescribed mifepristone there had been 2,207 cases involving adverse effects reported to the FDA. Once again though it needs to be mentioned that mifepristone is a synthetic steroid abortifacient while emergency contraceptives that are on the market are hormones.

Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Thank you!

I appreciate the link and something to read today. I suppose, however we all feel about this...times are changing. Particularly for us as parents, being informed through homework like this isn't just a good idea, but a requirement to safely raising kids.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Source

Seems there are some questions and disagreements on the implantation question.

A 2010 study 3 of ulipristal acetate (ella) found that at certain doses, it can decrease the thickness of the endometrium (by 0.6 to 2.2 mm), but it is not clear that this would in fact prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

And even if it does prevent implantation, many in the scientific arena consider implantation the beginning of a pregnancy.

Regardless, IMO, if a girl is old enough to GET pregnant, she should have autonomy over her own body.

Again, I'm showing my age, but I was in high school when the "Pill" became available and it was considered so controversial that I saw a classmate's assignment disallowed because we were supposed give a presentation in the format of a TV commercial. He was forced to choose another topic.

My personal sadness at the idea of a terminated pregnancy doesn't change the fact that I try to be realistic. Roe V. Wade arguments seem a moot point to me. The genie is out of the bottle and won't be going back. Remembering some of the tragedy brought on from desperation, I don't think it should.

I just wish there was more understanding on the part of young women/girls about their own bodies and how they work. By the time I left grade-school, I knew more about the physiology of the girls I dated than they did.

In the '70s one of my band mate's girlfriend went to the doctor extremely early in a pregnancy and he gave her some kind of injection. Whatever it was, she got severely ill... Wound up in the ER. I don't know all of the details. THAT didn't work out all that well..

Not long ago I heard college age woman say that pro-life/anti-abortion people really p*ssed her off because, "As long as the embryo isn't fertilized, what difference does it make?" I hope I don't need to explain to anyone what a clueless remark that is.

The "plan B" pill makes sense to me, but I would be a lot more comfortable if the girl taking it understood the difference between a contraceptive and birth control pill. I'm not out to start a tangent or go OT, but unless there is a lab somewhere that has actually managed to perfect human cloning there is only one place in all of human history that a baby has come from. Preventing its implantation at least stops the process in its tracks.

I made a comment early on this subject. I have read many replies but not the last ones.

Here is what I think matters:

Sex education is the responsibility of parents. Yes, all kids get health ed in this state in the ninth grade. It is a good thing, they do talk about abstinence, the reproductive process, stds, and a host of related subjects.

Here is the deal: We all have certain values that we hold dear. We can try to teach our children those. Whether abstinence is your goal for your teen, or some other type of dogma.

Of course we don't want our children to be having sex. They are too emotionally infantile for the emotions that go along with that.

You try to teach them how special and intimate it is, and should be saved. That is a conversation I have had a few times with both of my kids. So you go that route for a minute. The next thing you do is to is to make sure, should they make that decision, to be safe. That is a parent's job. Your kids must feel safe to be able to approach you about these things. If they can't talk to you, who are they gonna talk to?

It is the poor girl whose parents who haven't handled this subject that is gonna run for the morning after pill. It is the girl who can't talk to her parents. Therefore, if the parents are either not interested enough or are too lame, their daughters will have a way to go.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

We're talking about a drug (2 of them actually...as "the morning after pill" isn't just ONE product performing this role, but 2 of them) that has a whopping history reaching alllll the way back to 1999. Such a long history, we absolutely KNOW the effects and impact on all age ranges, in all conditions to be taking this without any medical oversight of any kind. Right? Just like Aspirin, Ibuprofen or water ..as others have referenced.

(Sorry, the water reference was so totally over the top for logic, I laughed out loud, seeing it brought up)

My contention, from the OP onward, has not been that 15 year olds be denied this option or ability to use it. It's that it be done with the guidance and supervision of their individual circumstances that comes by the need for a prescription at that age. As, I've also noted, is STILL required for the monthly schedule of Birth Control pills that would likely make ever needing this one, a moot point.

edit on 4-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Actually my statement was dealing primarily with Plan B which is the product pictured in your article. And is not RU-486. It is in fact no more or less harmful than regular BC. If you need more information on it the link is here.
Plan B One-Step

The only problem with your contention here is that it is the girls that have no one they can talk for the guidance and supervision.Teenage pregnancy is hardly a new trend, the only thing new is how we deal with it. Before the young girl would just not be seen in public after she started showing after the birth it would be common for the young woman's mother to claim the child as her own daughter. It wasn't all convents and orphanages. This is why I feel it if it is going to be available OTC then it should come with easy to understand information about sexual activity and where to go to seek help obtaining regular more conventional BC products and where to get proper medical advisement.

I don't think there is anyone responding to this thread that thinks 15 year olds should be sexually active. They just are not lying to themselves about the fact that their are alot of families out there that will not have honest and intellectual conversations with their children outside of " God says don't do it, so don't do it." It didn't work with Adam and Eve who got to walk and talk directly to God, what on earth makes anyone think it is going to work on a 15 year old who never met him?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


This is not surprising at all, considering his stated opinions over the years. He is a Nanny Stater of the worst kind. It is clear by his own statements that he believes that the State has rights over parents. This can be seen in the Common Core Standards which run over individual state's rights and the parental authority and ability to oversee their own child's education, as well as this bit about 15 year olds getting access to abortifacient products. Besides it being a matter of wresting away power from the parents, it is part of the bigger global de-population agenda.
Like you said, I am not arguing for or against abortion here but for parental rights as it should be, not the Supreme nanny State control.

However, the Prez is on record as opposing giving any comfort to a baby which somehow was still alive after a botched late term abortion, and thus we see that he agrees with the sickening practices of the Dr. Gosnell, who, along with his staff, used scissors to snip the necks of live babies where were moving and screaming.

Obviously, before or after the baby comes out of the womb is of no consequence to the Prez. And neither is the general health of a 15 year old teen, as long as it justifies his position of supporting Roe v Wade, which as we now know was based on a lie of both the primary complainant and her lawyers.

Interestingly enough, some reproductive rights people see this a limitation on complete access....how's that for radical?

"It is especially troubling in light of the Food and Drug Administration's move yesterday to continue age restrictions and ID requirements, despite a court order to make emergency contraception accessible for women of all ages. Both announcements, particularly in tandem, highlight the administration's corner-cutting on women's health," Baruch said. "It's a sad day for women's health when politics prevails."

hosted.ap.org...

I guess they are sporting for girls of any age to have access, which shows how far our society has gone in any moral compass whatever.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

They just are not lying to themselves about the fact that their are alot of families out there that will not have honest and intellectual conversations with their children outside of " God says don't do it, so don't do it."

On the other hand, sex ed programs written by SIECUS and Planned Parenthood have not stemmed the tide of teen pregnancies, but they have given Planned Parenthood income from abortions, and SIECUS got money from the Stimulus.
Books with pornographic pictures are being shown now to 4 year olds. This is beyond all reason as a way to curtail pregnancies. New books by Michael Emberley even portray sexual encounters of all kinds and put boy heads on girl bodies for confusion.

too bad none of this is working as advertised.

reply to post by GrantedBail

It is the poor girl whose parents who haven't handled this subject that is gonna run for the morning after pill. It is the girl who can't talk to her parents.

It is also the girl of any upbringing who is exposed to ideas that sex at any age and with any person (or animal) is allowable and just have an abortion if it happens. People are naively accepting that the State's ideas of sex ed can be compatible with a parent's desire to protect his or her children from teen pregnancy.

reply to post by kaylaluv


So allowing them a quick fix for a pregnancy does not make it easier for them to use it again and again? Something wrong in your logic.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

It is the poor girl whose parents who haven't handled this subject that is gonna run for the morning after pill. It is the girl who can't talk to her parents.

It is also the girl of any upbringing who is exposed to ideas that sex at any age and with any person (or animal) is allowable and just have an abortion if it happens. People are naively accepting that the State's ideas of sex ed can be compatible with a parent's desire to protect his or her children from teen pregnancy.

In what world do you live? This is just about as funny an example as you have ever laid out here on ATS. Would it shock you to know preachers' daughters get knocked up? Shocker, but true. - and what is this "sex with animals" bit?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

It is the poor girl whose parents who haven't handled this subject that is gonna run for the morning after pill. It is the girl who can't talk to her parents.

It is also the girl of any upbringing who is exposed to ideas that sex at any age and with any person (or animal) is allowable and just have an abortion if it happens. People are naively accepting that the State's ideas of sex ed can be compatible with a parent's desire to protect his or her children from teen pregnancy.

In what world do you live? This is just about as funny an example as you have ever laid out here on ATS. Would it shock you to know preachers' daughters get knocked up? Shocker, but true. - and what is this "sex with animals" bit?

CJ

edit on 5-5-2013 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

That is exactly my point....that there are no age, race, economic, or class factors which would necessarily increase or decrease the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy when sex ed is being foisted at the earliest possible age. I live in the world where pictures of people in bed together will NOT prevent pregnancy no matter how much people like you think 4 yr olds should see this.
You should see the books. I was at an expose on this and one couple left because they objected to seeing pictures of naked people and yet this is what is being shown to 4 year olds.
Have you seen the books? I bet not.
Sex ed is not working or we wouldn't need Ella and Plan B. But the abortion mill industry is promoting sex at any age.
And yes, it's more money for the Pharma companies.

And for the record, Ella is not intended to replace regular contraception and not intended to be used more than once in a cycle.

Ella is thought to work for emergency contraception primarily by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from the ovary, so no egg will be available for a sperm to fertilize. It is possible that Ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus. Though Ella prevents ovulation for as long as 5 days after unprotected sex, there is some concern that women may become confused by this and mistakenly believe that once taking Ella, it can further protect them against pregnancy from any additional acts of unprotected sex for 5 days (this is NOT the case, as sperm from additional sex can outlive the initial 5-day window).

contraception.about.com...

The reality is that a girl having sex at this age is likely to have it more than once a month. And please, tell me why 4 to 10 year olds need to know about abortion? Oh that's right, you haven't seen the books.
If I posted pics from these books, it would be considered porn

You might have to be educated by MSM on this issue
www.huffingtonpost.com...
Not enough?
Sean Hannity
www.mediaite.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I have two children, age 10 being the oldest. Never have they seen what you describe. Never has anything of the sort been foisted upon them. I guess the state of Colorado is fairly progressive in this matter.

Thanks for saying "people like me think 4 year olds should see this." Very classy and telling of you.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I have two children, age 10 being the oldest. Never have they seen what you describe. Never has anything of the sort been foisted upon them. I guess the state of Colorado is fairly progressive in this matter.

CJ

So just because your children haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean it's not happening or about to happen.

A hearing for the radical, explicit K-12 statewide abortion promoting sexual education bill is this Monday May 6th.

After passing the Nevada Assembly on a straight party line vote in which all Democrats voted for and all Republicans voted against it, a Senate Education Committee hearing for AB230-the radical, explicit, statewide K-12 abortion promoting sexual education bill is this Monday May 6 at 3:30. Pro-life groups do not normally involve themselves in sexual education issues except when abortion is involved. Unless abortion is excluded from this bill, it will allow those teaching sex education in NV schools to provide identification of abortion counseling and how and where to get an abortion.

www.lifenews.com...


So there's the abortion sex ed K-12 and it was fortunately opposed.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I have two children, age 10 being the oldest. Never have they seen what you describe. Never has anything of the sort been foisted upon them. I guess the state of Colorado is fairly progressive in this matter.

CJ

So just because your children haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean it's not happening or about to happen.

Yeah. And you believe I think 4 year olds should see pictures of naked people in bed. You are a liar and bs artist.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I have two children, age 10 being the oldest. Never have they seen what you describe. Never has anything of the sort been foisted upon them. I guess the state of Colorado is fairly progressive in this matter.

CJ

So just because your children haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean it's not happening or about to happen.

Yeah. And you believe I think 4 year olds should see pictures of naked people in bed. You are a liar and bs artist.

CJ

No, you are the one calling me a liar but I know you have either not seen the books or you approve or you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement to me. this isn't the first time you have insulted me when you didn't have the knowledge or understanding. And now I've even proven to you that there is legislation on the table approving this C&^% and you are still calling me a liar.
I don't know what your problem is but I suspect it's ideological.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Do you need more proof of what I am saying? I guess so since your ideological radar is going bonkers

“This week, both the New York Times and Washington Post rejected a full-page advertisement from American Life League as ‘too graphic’ and ‘shocking’ for their adult readers,” says an ALL report.
Judie Brown, president and co-founder of ALL, agrees that the images are shocking, but says that the images come directly from Planned Parenthood materials funded by American taxpayers and aimed at those taxpayers’ own children.

“Parents tax dollars are being used to turn their own children into Planned Parenthood’s future sex customers,” says Brown. “Their abortion business is based on exploiting young minds and filling those minds with all manner of sex instruction.

“It is a grisly trail, but it leads from sex instruction to contraception to abortion when contraception fails,” she says. “That is the Planned Parenthood recipe, and the media likes it.”

Read more at www.wnd.com...

“To raise public awareness about Planned Parenthood’s controversial sex education –more accurately described as sexual indoctrination – ALL planned a series of advertisements revealing what and how children are really taught in [Planned Parenthood's] so-called ‘comprehensive sex education,’” ALL says. “These are programs that are already in many schools and will reach all public schools as currently mandated in Obamacare.”

“Starting in kindergarten, funded with our tax dollars, [Planned Parenthood] uses graphic cartoons to saturate children with sexual imagery that encourages them to focus on sexuality, engage in sex and accept dangerous aberrant sexual acts as perfectly normal,” Brown explains.

www.wnd.com...

So much for who's the bs artist around here.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


So, ready to revise any of your statements yet? I even gave you the benefit of the doubt when I suggested you hadn't seen the books.

Here's a reference to a bill which ties in directly to the OP, that is access to abortifacient products as early as possible.

If successful, H3435 in SC and similar Bills in other states, will advance the Obamacare Contraception Mandate and the Common Core Standards, which include the National Sexuality Standards. These standards will become a permanent part of the infrastructure throughout the publicly funded school systems and agencies, providing everyone of “reproductive age,” including students in middle and high schools, easy access to free contraception, abortifacients, sterilization and other services.

charlestonteaparty.org...

PS I found out about the sex ed stuff from someone who ran as a local city commissioner.

Here is the sanitized version of the Common Core National Sexuality Education Standards

www.futureofsexeducation.org...

www.advocatesforyouth.org...

Why not let the kids do what ever they want? Let them smoke, have children out of wedlock, drink, and party to their heart's content. What are consequences these days? Slap on the wrist, and the parents get out the mop to clean-up. Now about the President, and his remarks about the morning-after pill being made available to 15-year-olds? His comments are indirectly condoning poor behavior by the youth.

Just because they are acting irresponsible? We have to sit back and condone it? Not on my watch! So, I do not see the logic behind this at all. Perhaps, we can instill in our children values? Like some self-discipline, courage to be better than the norm, treat themself and others with dignity, and other things that are conducive to becoming a well-rounded person in adulthood. No, that is too hard, and it is not cool! Lets give them pills, video games, all the alcohol they can drink, hand out condoms and birth control like candy, and push them off the cliff before their life begins. Why not? That is how I see these latest remarks by the President about the morning-after pill.