• 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]

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
No age limit would be an example of the federal government being out of the way.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
Maybe it's the government's way of discouraging more bimbos from breeding. It's Darwin's Theory put into play.
Click to expand...

Lots of 15 year olds have state issued photo ID's do they?
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

true, but that's because the FDA's mandate is to rule on the basis of medical safety, not social issues. AFAIK the FDA, which this lobbyist is not working for (right?), is the one who decided it was safe, so I just don't see how this lobbyist had an influence.

And even if he did, it seems as if his influence was a positive one. After all, the evidence shows that Plan B is safe, and the FDA's job is to rule on safety. If he influenced the FDA to rule it as safe, then all he did was to influence the FDA into doing what it is supposed to do - rule on safety
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

The head of the FDA is a Presidential appointee. The head of the FDA reports directly to the Secretary of HHS, a Presidential appointee. I, for one, am not so naive as to believe that the FDA is never influenced by Presidential politics.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The head of the FDA is a Presidential appointee. The head of the FDA reports directly to the Secretary of HHS, a Presidential appointee. I, for one, am not so naive as to believe that the FDA is never influenced by Presidential politics.
Click to expand...

I agree. There isn't an inch of govt that isn't vulnerable to corruption. However, since the law is that the FDA must make this decision on the basis of safety, and since Plan B is safe, I don't see how anyone trying to get the FDA to do its' job properly could be considered to be doing anything out of line, even if they're doing it out of self-interest.
 
sangha said:
I agree. There isn't an inch of govt that isn't vulnerable to corruption. However, since the law is that the FDA must make this decision on the basis of safety, and since Plan B is safe, I don't see how anyone trying to get the FDA to do its' job properly could be considered to be doing anything out of line, even if they're doing it out of self-interest.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I do believe there is some controversy or at least divergence of opinion as to whether or not the Plan B pill is safe for younger adolescents. Since it has not been widely in use or widely tested in lower age groups, there is no way at this point in time to categorically declare that the pill is safe. It can be subjectively argued either way, which is why the decision is ripe for political or self-interest influence.

Bottom line, I hope whatever happens, young women are not harmed either physically or emotionally by these decisions. These are heady circumstances for any woman to find herself in, let alone a young teenager, and it's questionable, at least in my mind, that a young teenager has the maturity to be making such decisions without at least some adult guidance.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, I'm not a scientist, but I do believe there is some controversy or at least divergence of opinion as to whether or not the Plan B pill is safe for younger adolescents. Since it has not been widely in use or widely tested in lower age groups, there is no way at this point in time to categorically declare that the pill is safe. It can be subjectively argued either way, which is why the decision is ripe for political or self-interest influence.

Bottom line, I hope whatever happens, young women are not harmed either physically or emotionally by these decisions. These are heady circumstances for any woman to find herself in, let alone a young teenager, and it's questionable, at least in my mind, that a young teenager has the maturity to be making such decisions without at least some adult guidance.
Click to expand...

Plan B has been used quite a bit in lower age groups. It's been available to young women in Europe for years. No evidence that it's unsafe for women of that age. And the FDA doesn't have to prove that it is "categorically safe".

As far as your concern with parental consent/knowledge goes, that is based on a social concern which is something the FDA doesn't have the authority to rule on. However, Congress is well within its' power to pass a law requiring restrictions on the sale of Plan B.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, I'm not a scientist, but I do believe there is some controversy or at least divergence of opinion as to whether or not the Plan B pill is safe for younger adolescents. Since it has not been widely in use or widely tested in lower age groups, there is no way at this point in time to categorically declare that the pill is safe. It can be subjectively argued either way, which is why the decision is ripe for political or self-interest influence.

Bottom line, I hope whatever happens, young women are not harmed either physically or emotionally by these decisions. These are heady circumstances for any woman to find herself in, let alone a young teenager, and it's questionable, at least in my mind, that a young teenager has the maturity to be making such decisions without at least some adult guidance.
Click to expand...
The FDA's record on safety is less than spectacular. We have an entire legion of lawyers that make their money suing drug manufacturers for defective products pronounced safe by the FDA. In fact, some physician friends of mine have told me on several occasions that "We don't know how this drug actually works. We just know it does." That was in reference to an anesthetic. I assume if the physicians don't know and the drug manufacturer doesn't know, that the FDA doesn't know either. When we expose our 15 year olds to a chemical abortion, we're exposing our youth to something of which we probably don't have full and complete knowledge. You know, if you're 70 years old and have largely lived a complete life, the idea of long term effects is somewhat amusing. If you're 15, it's not amusing at all.
 
Fisher said:
Lots of 15 year olds have state issued photo ID's do they?
Click to expand...
My 9 and 11 year-olds do. They've had state IDs for years. There's no special trick involved, it's the same process as for anyone else, if you can just get them to sit still for a camera.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not saying the policy directive took the federal government out of the equation, quite the opposite, when the administration ruled counter to the science that the drug would not be available to anyone under 17 without a prescription, and now 15. The administration DID intervene counter to the science, but the irony is that the administration is being lambasted by conservatives for not intervening MORE.

The court decision took the federal government out of the equation by ruling against ANY age limit.

I am curious what conservatives really want, no federal interference, more federal interference, or just any opportunity to criticize the administration?
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I am not saying the policy directive took the federal government out of the equation, quite the opposite, when the administration ruled counter to the science that the drug would not be available to anyone under 17 without a prescription, and now 15. The administration DID intervene counter to the science, but the irony is that the administration is being lambasted by conservatives for not intervening MORE.

The court decision took the federal government out of the equation by ruling against ANY age limit.

I am curious what conservatives really want, no federal interference, more federal interference, or just any opportunity to criticize the administration?
Click to expand...
You'll have to find those conservatives and ask them. There has been no lambasting from this one.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I am not saying the policy directive took the federal government out of the equation, quite the opposite, when the administration ruled counter to the science that the drug would not be available to anyone under 17 without a prescription, and now 15. The administration DID intervene counter to the science, but the irony is that the administration is being lambasted by conservatives for not intervening MORE.

The court decision took the federal government out of the equation by ruling against ANY age limit. I am curious what conservatives really want, no federal interference, more federal interference, or just any opportunity to criticize the administration?
Click to expand...

I can't speak to any conservatives at all, but I wouldn't want my daughter having access to those pills without my knowledge and consent.

And I do feel that the government is intrusive in the areas of privacy, which appears to be the case here.
 
Grant said:
I can't speak to any conservatives at all, but I wouldn't want my daughter having access to those pills without my knowledge and consent.

And I do feel that the government is intrusive in the areas of privacy, which appears to be the case here.
Click to expand...

In what way?

The intrusiveness seems to be favoring limiting access, unobtrusive policy would not limit access and let this be a personal, local, or state decision.

The fed is not forcing people to sell this to kids, they are just not prohibiting it.

Do you see the difference?
 
The FDA went too far in restricting access to the young as a sop to the religious right, and not on scientific grounds. Their erroneous interference has been corrected by the courts
 
Deuce said:
Why doesn't it make sense? You don't need a doctor to buy tylenol. On what medical basis do you make this statement?
Click to expand...

I understand the notion with women's rights and all that stuff....but when it comes to the point we're equating a pregnancy to a headache or sore muscles I think we've reached a problem.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, I'm not a scientist, but I do believe there is some controversy or at least divergence of opinion as to whether or not the Plan B pill is safe for younger adolescents. Since it has not been widely in use or widely tested in lower age groups, there is no way at this point in time to categorically declare that the pill is safe. It can be subjectively argued either way, which is why the decision is ripe for political or self-interest influence.

Bottom line, I hope whatever happens, young women are not harmed either physically or emotionally by these decisions. These are heady circumstances for any woman to find herself in, let alone a young teenager, and it's questionable, at least in my mind, that a young teenager has the maturity to be making such decisions without at least some adult guidance.
Click to expand...

"Pharm parties" remain a trend, and one in eight teens has taken painkillers to get high. No matter how comprehensive the sex ed., some kids are unduly influenced by their peers...and also by urban legends, such as that you can't get pregnant the first time. I can so, so see the same teens who are already indulging in risky behaviors abusing Plan B and affirming each other that it can't hurt.

DES was safe. Now we know that not only did DES cause ovarian and breast cancers, it is also now threatens the health of their sons and daughters. So were early forms of "the pill"--until women began stroking out. Any drug that messes with female hormones is risky, and I can so imagine this new pill being abused, not being taken "rarely" or "occasionally" but, rather, frequently and casually.

One in eight teens misuses prescription painkillers | Reuters

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/UCM247552.pdf
 
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...


i dont want to make my statement hard to understand, so i going to try to make it simple .

is a 15yr old a minor or adult, the child is a minor, this drug has been available to the public for 17 and above without parental approval, but with parental approval under the age of 17, now government has stated this drug can be sold to minors, without parent approval.

their are plenty of parents who dont want their child to receive this drug,.......... unless with their permission.

the FDA instructing people /business, to sell this drug to minors who's parents dont want it sold to them, remember the drug is already available if the parent approves now we have the circumvention of the parents approval by lowering the age to include minors now.

one question that comes to my mind when i see stories like this, if the child were to purchase the drug, without a parents permission, and the parent finds out and take the product away, or destroy it, can that child a minor seek action through force of law, to prohibit the parents from stopping them taking the drug.

the reason i ask this question is because their have been cases where children have called the law on their parents.

when someone is a minor, they dont have full rights to exercise, meaning they cant do things their parents dont want them to do, smoke, take drugs, drink, stay out late, look at sexual material....this is where parental rights come into play.

governments... can mean local, state, or federal and just because a government has deemed this drug is for legal sale to minors, does not give a child a legal right to purchase it, over the objections of a parent or use it over their objections, by using the law against them.

governmental regulations, do not override the rights of parents, concerning their children.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
The FDA's record on safety is less than spectacular. We have an entire legion of lawyers that make their money suing drug manufacturers for defective products pronounced safe by the FDA. In fact, some physician friends of mine have told me on several occasions that "We don't know how this drug actually works. We just know it does." That was in reference to an anesthetic. I assume if the physicians don't know and the drug manufacturer doesn't know, that the FDA doesn't know either. When we expose our 15 year olds to a chemical abortion, we're exposing our youth to something of which we probably don't have full and complete knowledge. You know, if you're 70 years old and have largely lived a complete life, the idea of long term effects is somewhat amusing. If you're 15, it's not amusing at all.
Click to expand...

Except, sigh, that most 15-year olds aren't thinking about the future.
 
It seems the Justice Department is now going to challenge the court ruling allowing under 18 yr olds to get the Plan B drug without a prescription.

Justice Dept. to appeal judge's order on Plan B pill

It was ordered to come into effect on May 5th, so now no change will happen until the appeal works it's way through.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
In what way?

The intrusiveness seems to be favoring limiting access, unobtrusive policy would not limit access and let this be a personal, local, or state decision.

The fed is not forcing people to sell this to kids, they are just not prohibiting it.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

By not prohibiting it they are allowing it, thereby intruding on a decision that should be known, accepted and approved by the family.

Do you see the difference?
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.)i dont want to make my statement hard to understand, so i going to try to make it simple .

2.)is a 15yr old a minor or adult, the child is a minor, this drug has been available to the public for 17 and above without parental approval, but with parental approval under the age of 17, now government has stated this drug can be sold to minors, without parent approval.

3.)their are plenty of parents who dont want their child to receive this drug,.......... unless with their permission.

4.)the FDA instructing people /business, to sell this drug to minors who's parents dont want it sold to them, remember the drug is already available if the parent approves now we have the circumvention of the parents approval by lowering the age to include minors now.

5.)everything below
one question that comes to my mind when i see stories like this, if the child were to purchase the drug, without a parents permission, and the parent finds out and take the product away, or destroy it, can that child a minor seek action through force of law, to prohibit the parents from stopping them taking the drug.

the reason i ask this question is because their have been cases where children have called the law on their parents.

when someone is a minor, they dont have full rights to exercise, meaning they cant do things their parents dont want them to do, take drugs, drink, stay out late, look at sexual material....this is where parental rights come into play.

governments... can mean local, state, or federal and just because a government has deemed this drug is for legal sale to minors, does not give a child a legal right to purchase it, over the objections of a parent or use it over their objections, by using the law against them.

governmental regulations, do not override the rights of parents, concerning their children.
Click to expand...

1.) yes because your rhetoric is very unclear
2.) yes i know this
3.) yes i know this
4.) ok THIS is where you need to explain. The FDA allowing it to be sold is not the same as the "FDA instructing people /business, to sell this drug to minors who's parents dont want it sold to them"

are you saying the law is telling the stores to see them this even against thier parenst will and nonconsent.
Ill need to see proof of that.

5.) the rest of your post is pretty meaningless to me until you give proof that what you say is actually the law.

seems to me the FDA just removed the restrictions :shrug:

if that is the case there is no parent rights infringement, no force for the child to receive this drug above the objections of a parent or harassment like you said and that was just hyperbole by you.


ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND STOP DODGING THEM LMAO
-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?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
By not prohibiting it they are allowing it, thereby intruding on a decision that should be known, accepted and approved by the family.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

that is the opposite of intrusion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom