Page 33 of 56 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 553

Thread: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

  1. #321
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't consider it a conservative or liberal issue - my point was related to a lobbiest for the drug company being involved at the highest ranks of the Department of HHS. Surely, in a country the size of America, there isn't a shortage of lawyers who could fill the role of head counsel who didn't spend 10 years pushing the pill in congress.
    I meant conservative in the non-political sense, ie; "that's a conservative estimate". The FDA was exercising more caution than the testing proscribed, that is why they lost the suit to even have an age limit.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not believe any amount of people committing suicide with firearms justifies requiring firearm sellers to preach to customers about suicide regardless if it would or wouldn't save those who commit suicide.

  2. #322
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    I meant conservative in the non-political sense, ie; "that's a conservative estimate". The FDA was exercising more caution than the testing proscribed, that is why they lost the suit to even have an age limit.
    It was my recollection when the case was being discussed last month that the FDA wanted to allow the drug to be available OTC but the Obama administration didn't want it to be, so the FDA changed its position and required availability under 18 be by prescription only. That's why the case went to court and the government position was thrown out.

    I apologize if I got that wrong, but I believe I have it right. If so, the FDA wasn't willingly exercising more caution but the administration was, likely because of the potential backlash. The FDA and the administration are probably quite happy that the court has sanctioned what the FDA originally wanted to do.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  3. #323
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ft.Wayne In
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,305

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    But did anybody notice that they are requiring ID for purchase?

    Don't understand that myself.

  4. #324
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    1. I know what is about to move up to #1 on the shoplifters' lists and

    2. I am beyond trying to make sense of it. I have to practically give a rectal DNA sample to get allergy medicine but I can walk in to pick up people's prescription pain meds for them at the pharmacy and never have to show ID.
    Maybe it's the government's way of discouraging more bimbos from breeding. It's Darwin's Theory put into play.

  5. #325
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    It was my recollection when the case was being discussed last month that the FDA wanted to allow the drug to be available OTC but the Obama administration didn't want it to be, so the FDA changed its position and required availability under 18 be by prescription only. That's why the case went to court and the government position was thrown out.

    I apologize if I got that wrong, but I believe I have it right. If so, the FDA wasn't willingly exercising more caution but the administration was, likely because of the potential backlash. The FDA and the administration are probably quite happy that the court has sanctioned what the FDA originally wanted to do.
    The science said there should be no age limit, so that was the FDA's position, but the FDA is under HHS, and HHS overuled the science in favor a more conservative policy of 17 and up without a prescription. That policy was challenged and failed in court because the science did not support it, but the FDA has still not complied with the court ruling by ruling 15 and over without a prescription.

    I don't think you are far off on the facts, but I think that if the administration approved of the FDA's original position, they would not have overruled it, and there is a fuzzy area as to who the FDA is, considering it is under HHS, Sebelious is above the FDA so she has the power to direct FDA policy, and did.

    I also do not believe that this ruling forces states, localities, and drug stores to make it available to those under 15, or under 17 without a prescription, I believe it just prohibits the federal government from making that prohibition. I know that many states had previously passed laws that allowed pharmacists (under certain circumstances, varying by state) to issue prescriptions for Plan B type contraceptives, contravening the federal law requiring prescriptions.

    No age limit would be an example of the federal government being out of the way.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not believe any amount of people committing suicide with firearms justifies requiring firearm sellers to preach to customers about suicide regardless if it would or wouldn't save those who commit suicide.

  6. #326
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I don't consider it a conservative or liberal issue - my point was related to a lobbiest for the drug company being involved at the highest ranks of the Department of HHS. Surely, in a country the size of America, there isn't a shortage of lawyers who could fill the role of head counsel who didn't spend 10 years pushing the pill in congress.
    But the thing is, the agency he works for argued against wider access to Plan B, not in favor of wider access, which makes your point nonsensical.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #327
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    No age limit would be an example of the federal government being out of the way.
    And yet it seems they want to involve themselves in every other area of a person's life.

    There really doesn't seem to be any philosophical consistency here.

  8. #328
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    It was my recollection when the case was being discussed last month that the FDA wanted to allow the drug to be available OTC but the Obama administration didn't want it to be, so the FDA changed its position and required availability under 18 be by prescription only. That's why the case went to court and the government position was thrown out.

    I apologize if I got that wrong, but I believe I have it right. If so, the FDA wasn't willingly exercising more caution but the administration was, likely because of the potential backlash. The FDA and the administration are probably quite happy that the court has sanctioned what the FDA originally wanted to do.
    Not quite. The law doesn't allow the FDA to restrict access to any medicine on the basis of a social concern. The FDA is required by law to make such decisions on the basis of safety.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #329
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Maybe it's the government's way of discouraging more bimbos from breeding. It's Darwin's Theory put into play.
    Lots of 15 year olds have state issued photo ID's do they?

  10. #330
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control [W:297]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    But the thing is, the agency he works for argued against wider access to Plan B, not in favor of wider access, which makes your point nonsensical.
    It only argued against wider access when instructed to do so by the Obama administration - I believe Sebelius and HHS originally agreed with the FDA position of wide access without a prescription until it changed its position. It could be argued that White House politics overruled the science but I don't dismiss the impact a former lobbiest for the drug manufacturer may have had in the original FDA/HHS position.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 33 of 56 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •