• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

So now only adult females should be allowed to purchase this OTC?

Females who are of age of consent at least.

Jeez, is it OK with you if I pick up my wife's birth control pills when I stop in for bread and milk? Or does she have to make a special trip just to appease you?

This is completely irrelevant. I don't know what your wife's BC pills have to do with the topic.
 
We all know how children and teenagers think, in my case I used to be one.
 
Females who are of age of consent at least.

This is completely irrelevant. I don't know what your wife's BC pills have to do with the topic.
Meaning I could pick up my wife's BC pills but I couldn't pick up a MAP when it's OTC? Doesn't that sound a little odd to you?

And what's to stop someone off the street from just buying it for them - for a fee, of course. You think alcohol doesn't get into the hands of minors? (And that takes a 21 y/o around here, not just 18.) Or maybe you think that many liquor stores actually risk their license to sell to minors? And if that many liquor stores DO sell to minors then surely you can see that pharmacies wouldn't be far behind in your scheme to force them into acting as enforcement agencies.
 
Last edited:
We all know how children and teenagers think, in my case I used to be one.
You mean you're not, anymore! :shock:



LOL! - You know I know you're not, legally speaking, right?
 
Meaning I could pick up my wife's BC pills but I couldn't pick up a MAP when it's OTC? Doesn't that sound a little odd to you?

And what's to stop someone off the street from just buying it for them - for a fee, of course. You think alcohol doesn't get into the hands of minors? (And that takes a 21 y/o around here, not just 18.) Or maybe you think that many liquor stores actually risk their license to sell to minors? And if that many liquor stores DO sell to minors then surely you can see that pharmacies wouldn't be far behind in your scheme to force them into acting as enforcement agencies.

Well, they didn't sell them to minors before, and that wasn't a big problem as far as I'm aware. I suppose that you don't think there should be an age limit on alcohol consumption either? Heck, why not let them start with the cirrhosis of the liver before they even know what's going on.
 
Well, they didn't sell them to minors before, and that wasn't a big problem as far as I'm aware. I suppose that you don't think there should be an age limit on alcohol consumption either? Heck, why not let them start with the cirrhosis of the liver before they even know what's going on.
Yes, there are medical facts to support making alcohol illegal to minors but any adult (not just males, for example) over 21 can buy it. I suspect if you require pharmacies to ask for ID many will simply not bother to stock the MAP. But maybe that's what you want, no OTC at all or only limited availability.
 
So now only adult females should be allowed to purchase this OTC?

Jeez, is it OK with you if I pick up my wife's birth control pills when I stop in for bread and milk? Or does she have to make a special trip just to appease you?

I can appreciate that your wife, in particular, might want to purchase the morning after pill - unfortunately, it might stop the pregnancy but it won't erase the memory.

However, the adults here were discussing the impact of the decision on young children.
 
A 9, 10 or 11-year-old can. You are aware that some girls start menstruating (which means they can become pregnant) as young as age 8 and 9 years old?


From the Judge's ruling:

The President endorsed this decision, explaining that “the reason [Secretary Sebelius] made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

The reader will observe that Secretary Sebelius did not say that, “if not used properly,” levonorgestrel-based emergency contraception could have an “adverse effect” on the youngest girls of reproductive age, nor did she include within that group girls as young as 10. Indeed, the drug is currently available to the youngest girls of reproductive age with a prescription.

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed.
Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/Tummino-SJ-memo.pdf
 
Yes, there are medical facts to support making alcohol illegal to minors but any adult (not just males, for example) over 21 can buy it. I suspect if you require pharmacies to ask for ID many will simply not bother to stock the MAP. But maybe that's what you want, no OTC at all or only limited availability.

Limited availability to children.
 
From the Judge's ruling:

Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Why would they include "any" age then? Were WOMEN having a difficult time obtaining it due to the age restrictions? Of course not. They lifted the age restriction for the specific purpose of opening it up to children obviously.
 
Why would they include "any" age then? Were WOMEN having a difficult time obtaining it due to the age restrictions? Of course not. They lifted the age restriction for the specific purpose of opening it up to children obviously.
No, they overturned the age restriction because the FDA had no power to put it there in the first place. You keep getting the medical facts and politics mixed up. This court case was not about politics, it was about the FDA's authority and medical evidence.
 
Then what's to stop the 18 y/o "boyfriend" from buying it?

Then he is prosecuted if caught, just like we do with alcohol, or anything else that minors aren't supposed to be involved in when adults take it upon themselves to provide such things to children.

It does NOT mean that I am trying to withhold this medication from women either. This means that I think it is reckless and irresponsible to have NO minimum age requirement for use of this drug.

To cover your other post below, whether or not you want to read into it "politics" is up to you. I don't see it that way. I see it as a safety issue and an issue which is contradictory to our age of consent laws. This drug only has ONE purpose.
 
Limited availability to children.

And you really don't think the price tag of about $50 per dose will limit the number of younger children buying it ?
 
Why would they include "any" age then? Were WOMEN having a difficult time obtaining it due to the age restrictions? Of course not. They lifted the age restriction for the specific purpose of opening it up to children obviously.

I did read that some young women were asked to show their ID to prove they were at least 17 .
But like was mentioned the FDA did not have the right to put an age restriction on it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Then he is prosecuted if caught, just like we do with alcohol, or anything else that minors aren't supposed to be involved in when adults take it upon themselves to provide such things to children.

It does NOT mean that I am trying to withhold this medication from women either. This means that I think it is reckless and irresponsible to have NO minimum age requirement for use of this drug.

To cover your other post below, whether or not you want to read into it "politics" is up to you. I don't see it that way. I see it as a safety issue and an issue which is contradictory to our age of consent laws. This drug only has ONE purpose.
"Age of consent" is in and of itself a political decision, not a medical one. You, yourself, should know that, biologically speaking. not all teens mature physically at the same rate. The age of consent is a political convenience to denote one stage of growth from another (regardless of biology) and, in some ways, is a social necessity. But the FDA is not allowed by law to make political decisions. Their responsibility is making medical and human health decisions.


I don't want my doctor dictating whether my 16 y/o can drive or not unless there's a medical reason to be concerned about them driving, like something the doctor prescribed. Otherwise, whether my 16 y/o can drive or not is between me, my child, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and has nothing to do with my doctor.
 
Last edited:
"Age of consent" is in and of itself a political decision, not a medical one. You, yourself, should know that, biologically speaking. not all teens mature physically at the same rate. The age of consent is a political convenience to denote one stage of growth from another (regardless of biology) and, in some ways, is a social necessity. But the FDA is not allowed by law to make political decisions. Their responsibility is making medical and human health decisions.

Right, and there is nothing wrong with putting an age limit on ANY medicines because of tendency of misuse or even abuse. Responsibility comes with age. Also, one reason why I think young girls will abuse and misuse this medicine is because you still have to have a prescription for BC. Those girls who are too embarrassed to tell their parents that they're sexually active are not on the pill, so there is a potential for misusing this medicine as a type of "birth control." It is LOADED with hormones which can increase the risks for certain types of cancers.


I don't want my doctor dictating whether my 16 y/o can drive or not unless there's a medical reason to be concerned about them driving, like something the doctor prescribed. Otherwise, whether my 16 y/o can drive or not is between me, my child, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and has nothing to do with my doctor.

This is a terrible analogy. Just TERRIBLE! :lamo For one thing, we HAVE minimum age limits on driving. For another thing, driving and taking medicines are two completely different things.
 
If parents do not talk to their children *before* they engage in sex, or if they fail to create a trusting relationship with their children, then for all practical purposes, they have left their teens on their own.

So then basically it is your opinion that if parents are not "perfect" parents, make mistakes with raising their children or don't talk to them enough to please you, that they should be left in the dark as to what their children are doing, and the irresponsible behavior of said children should go on uninhibited? Well, that's interesting.

My parents certainly were FAR from perfect and didn't really ever have the "talk" with me. That certainly doesn't mean that they didn't care about me though. Although I was a sexually active teen who did not tell her parents, I wish I would have talked with them or someone else I could trust about things and I wish I had been smart enough to actually LISTEN to them.

That is the thing about teens, a lot of them will NOT talk to their parents about such things, even if a parent is open and inviting and does talk with them. It's a time in life when you are breaking away from your parents. It's only natural that a lot of teens won't share their personal lives with their parents. Not that it's right, but it is part of growing up IMO.
 
From an article titled:Why Obama is wrong about Plan B and why it matters

The president’s statement (the first part, about safety) is mired in misinformation. Plan B (levonorgestrel), if “not used properly” has no untoward effects. Except failure to prevent a pregnancy if not taken as directed (meaning more than 5 days after the episode of unprotected sex).

Plan B does not cause cancer.

Plan B does not cause blood clots.

Plan B does not cause heart attacks.

Plan B does not cause abortion.

Plan B does not affect a fetus in any negative way.

And finally, Plan B retails for $60 for brand name and $37 for generic. Clearly [not] in the budget for most 10 and 11 year olds. And it would not be next to the bubble gum or batteries.


Plan B either works, and ovulation is inhibited and or no pregnancy, or it doesn’t work and sadly a 15-year-old is pregnant. And it is sad when it fails to work, because there is NO SCENARIO where a 15-year-old is pregnant and it’s a good thing.

Obviously the ideal scenario is the 15-year-old telling her parents that she is thinking about becoming sexually active. That for years, around the dinner table, there have been frank and educational discussions about sex, love, lust, and contraception s she feels comfortable discussing the subject with both of her parents. And that said 15-year-old, empowered with this information, goes with her parents to the doctor for the birth control pill (or the depo provera shot) and then makes sure she knows how to put on a condom herself in case her partner does not. She knows if a boy won’t wear a condom then he does not care about her in the way that he should. This girl will probably not need a Plan B because she has an AWESOME Plan A.

Why Obama is wrong about Plan B and why it matters | Dr. Jen Gunter
 
So then basically it is your opinion that if parents are not "perfect" parents, make mistakes with raising their children or don't talk to them enough to please you, that they should be left in the dark as to what their children are doing, and the irresponsible behavior of said children should go on uninhibited? Well, that's interesting.

My parents certainly were FAR from perfect and didn't really ever have the "talk" with me. That certainly doesn't mean that they didn't care about me though. Although I was a sexually active teen who did not tell her parents, I wish I would have talked with them or someone else I could trust about things and I wish I had been smart enough to actually LISTEN to them.

That is the thing about teens, a lot of them will NOT talk to their parents about such things, even if a parent is open and inviting and does talk with them. It's a time in life when you are breaking away from your parents. It's only natural that a lot of teens won't share their personal lives with their parents. Not that it's right, but it is part of growing up IMO.

No, it has nothing to do with being perfect. You have to put words in my mouth because you can't find any fault with anything I have actually said
 
Here is what you said.

If parents do not talk to their children *before* they engage in sex, or if they fail to create a trusting relationship with their children, then for all practical purposes, they have left their teens on their own.

Now, I went through the trouble of making a nice, polite and thoughtful response, and this is what I get? If you can't argue the point that YOU made, then just don't bother. :doh

No, it has nothing to do with being perfect. You have to put words in my mouth because you can't find any fault with anything I have actually said
 
So then basically it is your opinion that if parents are not "perfect" parents, make mistakes with raising their children or don't talk to them enough to please you, that they should be left in the dark as to what their children are doing, and the irresponsible behavior of said children should go on uninhibited? Well, that's interesting.

My parents certainly were FAR from perfect and didn't really ever have the "talk" with me. That certainly doesn't mean that they didn't care about me though. Although I was a sexually active teen who did not tell her parents, I wish I would have talked with them or someone else I could trust about things and I wish I had been smart enough to actually LISTEN to them.

That is the thing about teens, a lot of them will NOT talk to their parents about such things, even if a parent is open and inviting and does talk with them. It's a time in life when you are breaking away from your parents. It's only natural that a lot of teens won't share their personal lives with their parents. Not that it's right, but it is part of growing up IMO.

Well we all own life experiences.
Mine experiences were different than yours.
My mom and I had open talks.
I was NOT a sexually active teen.
My husband is the love of my life and my one and only sexual partner. We have been married over 40 years and raised 4 children.
I also tried to be vry open with our children and encouraged them be sexually responsible teens and adults.

We do the very best we can as parents to raise our children to become responsible.
Sometimes there comes a time when have to TRUST our children.
We need to be there for them and make sure they know they can come to us in times of need.

From what you said in your post I think you knew that your parents would be there for you too.
 
Last edited:
Well we all own life experiences.
Mine experiences were different than yours.
My mom and I had open talks.
I was NOT a sexually active teen.
My husband is the love of my life and my one and only sexual partner. We have been married over 40 years and raised 4 children.
I also tried to be vry open with our children and encouraged them be sexually responsible teens and adults.

We do the very best we can as parents to raise our children to become responsible.
Sometimes their comes a time when have to TRUST our children.
We need to be there for them and make sure they know they can come to us in times of need.

From what you said in your post I think you knew that your parents would be there for you too.

Thanks for the thoughtful post Minnie! :)

All you can do is talk to your children and hope that they will listen to half of what you say. Some people seem to think that if you talk to your children, then all problems will magically be solved, but they don't understand that it just doesn't always work out that way.
 
Here is what you said.



Now, I went through the trouble of making a nice, polite and thoughtful response, and this is what I get? If you can't argue the point that YOU made, then just don't bother. :doh

Here's what you said
So then basically it is your opinion that if parents are not "perfect" parents, make mistakes with raising their children or don't talk to them enough to please you, that they should be left in the dark as to what their children are doing, and the irresponsible behavior of said children should go on uninhibited? Well, that's interesting.

I did not say that. There is nothing nice or polite about putting words in someone elses' mouth

And it wasn't the first you've been rude in this thread, both to me and to others
 
Here's what you said


I did not say that. There is nothing nice or polite about putting words in someone elses' mouth

And it wasn't the first you've been rude in this thread, both to me and to others

I haven't been rude. I'm sorry that you can't handle it because you're too sensitive. Perhaps a debate site is just too tough for you?
 
Back
Top Bottom