Obama administration says it will allow all girls to have morning-after pill access

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
This is a tricky one. The drug is powerful and can lead to complications. Parents are legally responsible for their children and if their child is taking a powerful drug like this, they should know. But at the same time, many underage girls (like in inner cities) can't go to their parents for help and have to take care of themselves.

To Obama's credit (if I"m reading this correctly), in the past he has siding with restricting the drug to only those who are 15 and older. He seems to understand the situation. I'm not sure why there has been a shift in his thinking on this.

For my situation - my daughter is under age and I'm legally responsible for her. If she were to start taking heavy duty body altering pills like this ... I would need to know about it.

Obama administration says it will allow all girls to have morning-after pill access


he Obama administration announced Monday it will end age restrictions on emergency contraception, allowing girls and women of all ages to purchase the morning-after pill without a prescription.

The Department of Justice notified U.S. District Judge Edward Korman it will submit a plan for compliance with his recent ruling that allowed unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step. If he approves it, the department will drop its appeal of his April ruling.

According to the department's letter to the judge, the Food and Drug Administration has told the maker of the pills to submit a new drug application with proposed labeling that would permit it to be sold "without a prescription and without age or point-of-sale prescriptions."




posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I heard the Feds were going to intervene and then decided to back out which doesn't surprise me because they let the drug companies do whatever they want anyway, it appears to me. I was thinking that there are cases of date rape and incest related pregnancies, I was on an abused women websight sometime ago and it happens more than I could have ever imagined, probably more than most people know about too. I was thinking if you keep this drug which prevents an egg from becoming fertilized away from younger girls, well they are the ones who actually need it the most. I imagine that was the argument for removing or eliminating the age requirement.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Entertainment industry makes them slutty and now they have an another excuse other than YOLO to not wear protection. Wait for the rise in sexual transmitted infections,

How about cut sexual music content from radio/tv (before 10pm) stop letting fashion designers plaster our tv with women in size 0 clothes and next to nothing on there body. Whilst were at it, throw a few more million into proper sexual education, I don't know whats with politicians and there inability to solve problem, they just mask them up and prolong them.

Right now, this is an analogy of how it seems were teaching sexual education & throwing it down the necks of our youth..No pun intended



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
This is a tricky one. The drug is powerful and can lead to complications. Parents are legally responsible for their children and if their child is taking a powerful drug like this, they should know. But at the same time, many underage girls (like in inner cities) can't go to their parents for help and have to take care of themselves.

To Obama's credit (if I"m reading this correctly), in the past he has siding with restricting the drug to only those who are 15 and older. He seems to understand the situation. I'm not sure why there has been a shift in his thinking on this.

For my situation - my daughter is under age and I'm legally responsible for her. If she were to start taking heavy duty body altering pills like this ... I would need to know about it.

Obama administration says it will allow all girls to have morning-after pill access


he Obama administration announced Monday it will end age restrictions on emergency contraception, allowing girls and women of all ages to purchase the morning-after pill without a prescription.

The Department of Justice notified U.S. District Judge Edward Korman it will submit a plan for compliance with his recent ruling that allowed unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step. If he approves it, the department will drop its appeal of his April ruling.

According to the department's letter to the judge, the Food and Drug Administration has told the maker of the pills to submit a new drug application with proposed labeling that would permit it to be sold "without a prescription and without age or point-of-sale prescriptions."


I agree with you on all points. I don't have a problem with contraception, but I do have a problem with how the medication will be dispensed. Absent a life or limb emergency, I cannot give a child under 18 so much as an aspirin without parental consent, yet this one drug gets an exemption to a rule that applies to every other medication out there.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




Obama administration says it will allow all girls to have morning-after pill access


I'm not sure that having Big Brother make semi-oversteps on the rights of parents is the best idea. I understand some of the reasoning behind it but, at the same time, we're still going through this nanny-state approach to what should be articles of personal responsibility.

One one side, there is the undeniable fact that parenting skills have fallen to an all-time low as far as quality and devotion. Somebody has to fill the gaps. The other side asks whether government is the proper babysitter and whether offering an easy excuse for poor personal behavior is the answer to the problem.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I guess the Obama administration wants the teens to start ripping off their parents and relatives every time they have sex. Where are teens going to get the hundred bucks for this medication? I guess the teenage girls will have to start charging for sex so they can give the money to the Pharmacy.

I see a lot of moral issues with this law. I think this is not something that the government should be involved with, they should not make it legal for underage kids to be able to buy this pill. Of all the things the Feds have done I think this is the worst. This is a family issue, not a federal issue.

All I can do is curse the US government till they reverse this action.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Can't help but wonder if we're in a facet of the timeline from the Asgard in Stargate SG-1, where they conquer the human race through 100 years of sterilization.


The things people put inside their vessel... Like kids eating legos.. ugh i digress.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
I'm not sure that having Big Brother make semi-oversteps on the rights of parents is the best idea.

Yes, it does overstep. I'm legally responsible for the health of my child. Not the government.
But at the same time, there are those who can't go to their parents for whatever reason.
Like I said .... tricky.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by redoubt
I'm not sure that having Big Brother make semi-oversteps on the rights of parents is the best idea.

Yes, it does overstep. I'm legally responsible for the health of my child. Not the government.
But at the same time, there are those who can't go to their parents for whatever reason.
Like I said .... tricky.


Well, hopefully, those kids who have really good parents who keep open lines of non-judgmental communication will not be the ones who go off to purchase this in secret. Those are the kids who will go to their parents with this type of problem. It's the other kids I worry about - the ones who don't have healthy, open communications with their parents.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I think it's great that the government can step in and make the determination as to what age a child can use over-the-counter-next-day birth control!

Government? Since you're listening in on all our communications anyway, can you determine a good bedtime for my youngest?

How about new clothes? Can you get some for him?

He also gets a kiss on the forehead every night from me. Can ya' step in and do that also?

I honestly don't know what we'd do without government!

Why, we'd actually have to parent or claim responsibility or something!

sarcasm/off



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I think it's great that the government can step in and make the determination as to what age a child can use over-the-counter-next-day birth control!

Government? Since you're listening in on all our communications anyway, can you determine a good bedtime for my youngest?

How about new clothes? Can you get some for him?

He also gets a kiss on the forehead every night from me. Can ya' step in and do that also?

I honestly don't know what we'd do without government!

Why, we'd actually have to parent or claim responsibility or something!

sarcasm/off


Who's stopping you from parenting? It's not like anyone is forcing the kid to go buy the drug. Be a parent and talk to your kid about it. Let them know that you don't want them to purchase this. If they respect you as a parent, they won't do it.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


No-one is stopping me from parenting.

And if the government had said, sale prohibited to a minor without parental consent, I'd have no problem with it.

But the government has determined that a child needs no parental consent when determining morning-after pill access. THEY have made a unilateral decision.

Rather nice of them, don't you think?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
As it should be



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


No-one is stopping me from parenting.

And if the government had said, sale prohibited to a minor without parental consent, I'd have no problem with it.

But the government has determined that a child needs no parental consent when determining morning-after pill access. THEY have made a unilateral decision.

Rather nice of them, don't you think?


No, they are leaving it up to you to teach your kid your rules and morals. It is YOUR decision how you raise your kids. If you do your job right, your kid will never go buy this drug, so this doesn't even affect you. But what about the kids who don't have good parents? What about the kids whose parents never taught them rules or morals? What about those kids who ended up in trouble, but have no good parents to go to for guidance? What are those kids supposed to do? Don't tell me those kids don't exist. Don't tell me those bad parents don't exist.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Who's stopping you from parenting?

well ... we are legally responsible for the health and safety of our children. When the government steps in and says that the kids can buy a very powerful drug like this and the kids don't have to tell the parents ... that oversteps what the government should be doing. So it DOES interfere with parenting.

But like I said .. it's tricky. Not all parents are engaged in actual parenting. I've seen a few Maury shows .. I've seen what some people call 'parenting skills' ... and they are sucky.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Who's stopping you from parenting?

well ... we are legally responsible for the health and safety of our children. When the government steps in and says that the kids can buy a very powerful drug like this and the kids don't have to tell the parents ... that oversteps what the government should be doing. So it DOES interfere with parenting.

But like I said .. it's tricky. Not all parents are engaged in actual parenting. I've seen a few Maury shows .. I've seen what some people call 'parenting skills' ... and they are sucky.



Here's an example of good parenting:

Parent says, "There's this new drug out there to help stop an unwanted pregnancy. It will be made available to anyone, regardless of age. I have some major concerns about this drug, and it's safety. If you have a night of unprotected sex, and are scared about the consequences, please come to me first. I won't judge you, or punish you or hate you. I am on your side; I've got your back. You are not alone. We'll talk about your options, and I will help you make a decision that is right for you." I GUARANTEE you, that no kid who is told this in an honest and sincere way, will ever go behind your back and buy this drug.

I understand your point. But I truly believe that the kids who are most likely to buy this drug are the kids who have sucky parents.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


No-one is stopping me from parenting.

And if the government had said, sale prohibited to a minor without parental consent, I'd have no problem with it.

But the government has determined that a child needs no parental consent when determining morning-after pill access. THEY have made a unilateral decision.

Rather nice of them, don't you think?


No, they are leaving it up to you to teach your kid your rules and morals. It is YOUR decision how you raise your kids. If you do your job right, your kid will never go buy this drug, so this doesn't even affect you. But what about the kids who don't have good parents? What about the kids whose parents never taught them rules or morals? What about those kids who ended up in trouble, but have no good parents to go to for guidance? What are those kids supposed to do? Don't tell me those kids don't exist. Don't tell me those bad parents don't exist.


Then why stop at morning after pills? Why not go with perscription medications as well? Why have parental consent for ANYTHING?

I mean, a good parent will steer kids away, a bad parent won't. So children get to make adult-decisions now because they have bad parents andf because the government deems it appropriate.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
For my situation - my daughter is under age and I'm legally responsible for her. If she were to start taking heavy duty body altering pills like this ... I would need to know about it.


I would rather know if my daughter is engaging in sexual conduct with others if she was under aged. Fact is, if she was not having sex, she would have no use for the morning after pill to begin with and I would not have to be concerned with her taking such a powerful drug.

Isn't this the real issue? This drug is a symptom of the bigger problem. Why be distracted by treating the symptom instead of eliminating the problem?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Then why stop at morning after pills? Why not go with perscription medications as well? Why have parental consent for ANYTHING?

I mean, a good parent will steer kids away, a bad parent won't. So children get to make adult-decisions now because they have bad parents andf because the government deems it appropriate.


Well, let's take an example of hydrocodone. A good parent will steer their kid away from going to a store and purchasing hydrocodone for recreational purposes. A bad or non-existent parent will probably not do a good job of steering the kid away from it. So keeping hydrocodone as a prescription makes sense, because of the addictive and destructive nature of it, and because of the bad parents out there who won't steer their kids away from it.

Now, let's look at an example of parental consent -- a kid can't get into an R-rated movie without a parent. Good parents will steer their kids away from trying to see an R-rated movie that is not appropriate for them. A bad parent will probably just let the kid go to any R -rated movie - what do they care, right, as long as they don't have to deal with it. Having the restriction on the R-rated movie is probably a good thing, because it may keep the kids with bad parents out of the movie theater. For those parents who feel strongly that their kid should see a specific R-rated movie? No prob - just accompany your child into the movie.

Go back and look at the intention of allowing all girls to have access to the morning-after pill. Unwanted pregnancies are especially rampant among a certain group of girls - those with bad or non-existent parents - in lower socio-economic neighborhoods. Up until now, those girls only had one choice - drop out of school and have the kid (and get on welfare), with no emotional or financial support from parents. Now, they will have another option to prevent unwanted pregnancies, an end to their education, and a lifetime of welfare.

See the difference between allowing kids access to hydrocodone and allowing them access to preventing unwanted pregnancies?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


It's a bit convoluted.

What differentiates a child with bad parents vs a child with good parents when the onus is on the child to make an adult decision?

The government (and you) are saying that children with bad parents actually have a greater oppourtunity to make adult decisions for themselves.
What has trained them to make these adult decisions?
What has prepared them to make these adult decisions?

Bad parenting? Are you infering that bad parents produce better decision makers? Are you stating that having pre-marital sex infers that you are then capable of making an adult decision?





new topics
top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join