• 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!

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

Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control

I see you like facts. I like facts too:

"Likely" works for me too. I never said otherwise. I did say that it's a possibility that young women should consider...just like they need to with the Pill. There are always individuals who react differently than the majority of the population.
 
"Birth Control Answer A22438
Hi,
Welcome to ehealthforum,
Emergency contraceptives work in preventing pregnancy if taken within 48 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse. It is common to have withdrawal bleeding within 5-7 days of taking the pill. It delays your normal periods due to the withdrawal bleeding occurring after taking it. Repeated use of these often can affect your fertility levels. You should get your withdrawal bleeding within 5-7 days of taking the pill. Start with regular birth control prescribed by your gynecologist after you get the bleeding to start having protection against pregnancy. Avoid having unprotected intercourse while being on the first birth control pill pack. Avoid use of emergency contraception often. Increased maternal age at pregnancy is also not good. Do not delay in having children. After age of 35 years, incidence of birth defects, chromosomal anomalies, early miscarriages, preterm labour, low birth weight in babies increase.
Take care. "


Birth Control Forum - Does plan b affect long term fertility?

It took 30 seconds to find one example.

I have not proposed that this is a common side affect, I have said that it is possible, just like with other hormone regulators, like the Pill. And most women don't choose to risk their chance for children later lightly. Teens however....may not even think about it.

The quote is not about Plan B and Plan B is not taken "often"
 
Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control

"Likely" works for me too. I never said otherwise. I did say that it's a possibility that young women should consider...just like they need to with the Pill. There are always individuals who react differently than the majority of the population.

Excessive intake of water can be fatal. Maybe it should require a prescription :screwy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
 
If a child wants to buy it, and she has the money, I don't see how anyone can stop her.

After all, no one could stop her from having unprotected sex

That comparison doesn't work.

Peer to peer sex is not regulated. Alcohol, cigarettes, etc are and there are controls in place to make them harder to obtain and penalties for businesses which get caught doing so.

Just like making Sudafed, etc a controlled substance and more difficult to obtain....Plan B could be similar if it was restricted.

Nothing is 100%, of course.
 
That comparison doesn't work.

Peer to peer sex is not regulated. Alcohol, cigarettes, etc are and there are controls in place to make them harder to obtain and penalties for businesses which get caught doing so.

Alcohol and cigarettes have been proven to be unsafe

Plan B has not
 
Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control

Excessive intake of water can be fatal. Maybe it should require a prescription :screwy

Water intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I was going to point out earlier that almost ANY substance, abused or taken to excess, can be dangerous.

Can you tell me your point again? Should we just control no substances?

And btw, if I had my choice, NO substances would be illegal for adults. But I would still allow minors to be dependent on parental permission.
 
The quote is not about Plan B and Plan B is not taken "often"

But it can be. Anytime after each time they have sex.

Ok, you seem to either be dumber than a box of rocks or just don't want to look wrong in the Internetz.


Enjoy....I can handle letting my posts speak for me.
 
Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control

Yes, I was going to point out earlier that almost ANY substance, abused or taken to excess, can be dangerous.

Can you tell me your point again? Should we just control no substances?

And btw, if I had my choice, NO substances would be illegal for adults. But I would still allow minors to be dependent on parental permission.

My point is that the FDA can not refuse to allow Plan B to be sold OTC unless it can be proven to be unsafe.

You are arguing that because it might be unsafe, it should be illegal to sell it to minors.

Since water might be unsafe, maybe that should require a prescription, or parental permission, too. :roll:
 
Alcohol and cigarettes have been proven to be unsafe

Plan B has not

Cute switching gears there, from 'cant stop them' to " but it's not harmful.'

Bobbing and weaving is just a distraction.
 
Cute switching gears there, from 'cant stop them' to " but it's not harmful.'

Bobbing and weaving is just a distraction.

I didn't switch anything.

They're not mutually exclusive. Both are true
 
Wonderful that you dug beneath the surface, sad that you found only what you wanted and not the truth.

The FDA ruled that the drug could only be sold to people 17 and older with proof of age. A suit was filed in federal court that basically argued that since the drug was found to be safe for any age, that this was a capricious rule. The out ruled for the plaintive and required the drug to be sold without ANY age restriction. The FDA is STILL in violation if this ruling, but are willing to push the issue by making the rule 15 years old WITH proof of age.

The FDA is being conservative here, but nice try.

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.
 
Plan B does not terminate an existing pregnancy, no.

No, it is literally a contraceptive, a conception prevention drug, just like birth control pills (same active ingredient), but in one larger dose to PREVENT fertilization. It will have no effect if fertilization has already taken place, which is why its effectiveness is reduced by the hour after unsafe sex.

Plan-B is not designed to cause an abortion. Plan-B prevents the release of an egg, therefore no conception occurs.

Plan-B does not interfere with a fertilized egg implanting, so if a zygote is formed the pregnancy will proceed as normal even if Plan-B is used (which occurs @10% of the time).

I agree with lowering the age, and I agree with making Plan-B available without a prescription, but it should remain behind a locked case. It is not the 15 y/o customer I'm worried about, it's the shoplifters.

Stand corrected.
 
the FDA is part of the executive branch, there is not no one elected to it, its run my appointed bureaucrats....who are not accountable to the people.

they have no authority to issues any orders to the people, no authority over the rights of parents.

this is another step of government outside the Constitution.

as i stated to earlier, i have no problem with the drug being available, but government does not dictate to the people.

the Constitution gave government no authority over the people at all.

in following the constitution.... government has only authority in d.c. and were the feds and the state have agreed on, and that pertains to buildings only.

government has no authority on private or state property to come and go at will and harass the people.

ok :shrug:
not sure what has changed with or conversation and again, i dont know about this issue well at all
so lets reflect.
you dont like the excutive branch (FDA) making decesion about Food and Drugs, correct?

and you didnt answer my questions, yet, any of them.

-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?

I have these question because you keep suggesting force and "parent's rights infringement" and im asking what makes that so and what makes this different than anything and everything else a minor could buy.
 
That's an interesting point. The government interfering in your relationship with your child, telling YOU as a parent that it is okay for your minor child to take medications without your permission or knowledge. These are just children who are NOT yet self-sufficient, who rely on their parents for support, and again the parents are responsible for every single action that their child takes.

I'm not against this pill per se, but just against the government interfering in a parent/child relationship in such a way. A nice little loop hole for them to use to be interfering nannies.

again how does the government interfere with anything?

unless this law says the store has to sell it to the child if they ask for it even against parents will and no consent there is zero interference. And the law might say that im not familiar with it but unless it does theres no interference. It dramatic verbiage he is using.

by that logic every stor everywhere is guilty, should people under 18 not be allowed to buy anything with out parental consent?
 
Re: Drug Agency Lowers Age For Next-Day Birth Control

"Likely" works for me too. I never said otherwise. I did say that it's a possibility that young women should consider...just like they need to with the Pill. There are always individuals who react differently than the majority of the population.

And young girls' bodies are not the same as grown women's.

We've seen before how new and perfectly safe drugs turn out not to be safe. And the same teenaged girls who are already behaving recklessly may not take Plan B as prescribed. There really is a potential for abuse, and I am concerned because we do not know what the long-term effects will be.
 
again how does the government interfere with anything?

unless this law says the store has to sell it to the child if they ask for it even against parents will and no consent there is zero interference. And the law might say that im not familiar with it but unless it does theres no interference. It dramatic verbiage he is using.

by that logic every stor everywhere is guilty, should people under 18 not be allowed to buy anything with out parental consent?

It is now available to teens 15 and older without any stipulations for parental consent or knowledge. :shrug:
 
It is now available to teens 15 and older without any stipulations for parental consent or knowledge. :shrug:

yes and how is that different from other drugs available to 15year olds and every other product in every store and pharmacy available to 15 year olds. Wheres the force/interference.

thats what im getting at.

Unless this laws says the store must sell it to them this law doesnt interfere or force anything. The situation hasnt changed in reality, only that another product is on the list of millions that can be bought without parental consent.

Status qou hasnt changed that im aware of, before this law products could be bought by 15yr olds without consent after this law that remains true.

My question to him is what am i missing, it seems like a bunch of hyperbole to me. But i fully admit i could be wrong since im not familiar with this law.
 
yes and how is that different from other drugs available to 15year olds and every other product in every store and pharmacy available to 15 year olds. Wheres the force/interference.

thats what im getting at.

Unless this laws says the store must sell it to them this law doesnt interfere or force anything. The situation hasnt changed in reality, only that another product is on the list of millions that can be bought without parental consent.

Status qou hasnt changed that im aware of, before this law products could be bought by 15yr olds without consent after this law that remains true.

My question to him is what am i missing, it seems like a bunch of hyperbole to me. But i fully admit i could be wrong since im not familiar with this law.

I think you need to educate yourself on this topic before you continue to comment. Before the law was 17 years old, now they've lowered it to 15. They were considering no minimum age requirement at all, but apparently there was some outrage about that, so they made it 15. I don't have a problem with a 15 year old or perhaps even a younger teen taking this pill if they find they need to, but making it easier for teens to be participating in risky activities without their parents knowledge is NOT doing those teens any favors IMO.
 
I think you need to educate yourself on this topic before you continue to comment. Before the law was 17 years old, now they've lowered it to 15. They were considering no minimum age requirement at all, but apparently there was some outrage about that, so they made it 15. I don't have a problem with a 15 year old or perhaps even a younger teen taking this pill if they find they need to, but making it easier for teens to be participating in risky activities without their parents knowledge is NOT doing those teens any favors IMO.


no im fully aware of that part of the change that has no impact on my question.
And your opinion above is also fine by me but it too doesnt address what my post is about.

Wheres the interference, wheres the force, what parental rights are being taken away. I know YOU didnt say that but thats what my post was questioning.

my questions are about the seemingly nonsensical remarks he made about "forcing parents" and "inferring" and "against parents will".

This law to my knowledge doesnt factually do any of that.

what did it change as far as parents rights and will goes. what did it force on them?
Like i said all this law did is add another product to the list of millions that can be bought by a 15yr old.
 
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.
 
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.
 
But did anybody notice that they are requiring ID for purchase?

Don't understand that myself.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom