• 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!

Plan B will continue to be offered ONLY behind the counter

lovetosing4678

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
255
Reaction score
58
Location
Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama: Morning-after pill decision 'common sense'
President Barack Obama on Thursday defended his health secretary's decision to stop the Plan B morning-after pill from moving onto drugstore shelves next to the condoms.
"As the father of two daughters," he said, "I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine." The president spoke the morning after his administration stunned major doctors' groups and women's health advocates with the decision.Plan B is a pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken soon enough after unprotected sex. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled scientists at the Food and Drug Administration who were preparing to let Plan B sell without a prescription to people of any age. Sebelius decided that young girls shouldn't be able to buy the pill on their own, saying she was worried about whether 11-year-olds would know how to use it properly.Obama said Sebelius made that decision on her own. But he said he thought she was worried about young girls experiencing harmful side effects, saying "I think most parents would probably feel the same way.
For now, Plan B will stay behind pharmacy counters, available without a prescription only to those 17 and older who can prove their age.

What do you think? Should this pill be allowed to be sold next to the condoms? They are about $50, according to the article, so people most likely wouldn't be buying them as they do condoms. Also, think of how often the pharmacy is often open. I know that sometimes when I have a cold by the time I can get to the store the pharmacy is closed. The sooner you take this pill the more effective it is. So what do you think?


 
As someone who does not believe in the idea of "on demand" abortion, I am 100% in favor of this ruling. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. If you don't want to run that risk, don't have sex. If you do have sex, you need to accept that there are potential consequences of that action. As such, I am totally against any form of "morning after" pill, whether it be prescription, over the counter, etc....
 
I took it once. I was sicker than I've ever been for about 5 days afterwards.

When I took it, the process was 2 pills 12 hours apart. You had to take a pregnancy test before taking the pills, too. The potential side effects of the pill are pretty significant. When I took it I had to sign paperwork stating that I was aware of the potential side effects...which is probably why I had to be 18 to get it back then.

I think Plan B is a great option to use in an "oops" kind of situation...and I'm kind of on the fence regarding whether or not it should be easy-access. I'm sure other girls wouldn't experience what I experienced, but some of them definitely would...and it was pretty scary. I seriously worried for a day or two whether or not I was going to need emergency medical care. Then, you have girls who might take it long after the threshold has passed and who are already pregnant, putting themselves at further risk of hemorrage and internal bleeding related to potential miscarriage, or creating an issue of defects for an existing fetus.

Honestly, the 9-12 hours that a pharmacy might be closed wouldn't necessarily affect the ability of the pill to do it's job, and most significantly sized towns have at least 1 24-hour pharmacy, so I'm not sure that the pharmacy's hours and the threat of lost effectiveness is really justification for taking out from behind the counter.
 
As someone who does not believe in the idea of "on demand" abortion, I am 100% in favor of this ruling. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. If you don't want to run that risk, don't have sex. If you do have sex, you need to accept that there are potential consequences of that action. As such, I am totally against any form of "morning after" pill, whether it be prescription, over the counter, etc....

Plan B doesn't cause abortions when used as instructed. It prevents pregnancy from beginning at all.
 
Obama: Morning-after pill decision 'common sense'


What do you think? Should this pill be allowed to be sold next to the condoms? They are about $50, according to the article, so people most likely wouldn't be buying them as they do condoms. Also, think of how often the pharmacy is often open. I know that sometimes when I have a cold by the time I can get to the store the pharmacy is closed. The sooner you take this pill the more effective it is. So what do you think?



It'll probably be good for business. They need women to buy these drugs in order to keep their business afloat, obviously. To me, birth control is a better alternative to abortion.

Birth control is cheaper than abortion. Abstinence is cheaper than birth control, but understanding human error, that won't happen.
 
Tigger said:
If you do have sex, you need to accept that there are potential consequences of that action.

This non-argument is refuted by the fact that the potential consequences of that action are eliminated through contraception.

tessaesque said:
Plan B doesn't cause abortions when used as instructed. It prevents pregnancy from beginning at all.

Some extremely fanatic anti-choice nutjobs consider the morning after pill to be a form of abortion because it has the possibility of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. I'm guessing this is what tigger is referring to.

Wake said:
Abstinence is cheaper than birth control

Not when you're spending more on Kleenex than you are on condoms. :p

I fully support this to be offered over the counter, provided that the risks and side effects are properly explained.
 
This non-argument is refuted by the fact that the potential consequences of that action are eliminated through contraception.



Some extremely fanatic anti-choice nutjobs consider the morning after pill to be a form of abortion because it has the possibility of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. I'm guessing this is what tigger is referring to.



Not when you're spending more on Kleenex than you are on condoms. :p

I fully support this to be offered over the counter, provided that the risks and side effects are properly explained.

If taken early enough it prevents fertilization, too...so again, not abortion....not arguing with you, just making another point.
 
Unwanted pregnancies have what benefit again? Seriously, there's absolutely no reason to inhibit women from obtaining these. Absolutely make any side effects known, as with any medication.
 
I wonder if these are available over online pharmacies like United Pharmacies? If so, then they can easily be purchased over the internet without a prescription.
 
I don't know the details on this -- how difficult/dangerous it really is -- but it sure sounds a little political, as in not wanting to PO anti-abortion types.
 
I wonder if these are available over online pharmacies like United Pharmacies? If so, then they can easily be purchased over the internet without a prescription.

That's actually how I got mine...sort of...I ordered it online through a company that sent a prescription to my local pharmacy.
 
From what I've read (and in no way is it exhaustive), it seems the majority of the concern is about the moral and social implications of providing young girls with a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Seems the FDA has deemed it relatively safe as a means of preventing pregnancy in the first place. Again, from the little bit I've read, this seems more like a moral judgement call than a rational, evidence based assessment.

On related note, seems that the teen birth rate dropped to a new low in 2009.
 
I don't know the details on this -- how difficult/dangerous it really is -- but it sure sounds a little political, as in not wanting to PO anti-abortion types.

The following are considered the normal side effects of the pill, which are really no different than many OTC meds:

Side Effects of Plan B or Plan B One-Step
Many women have taken emergency contraception without serious complications. But it's a good idea to ask your doctor about possible interactions with other medications.

Plan B or Plan B One-Step is considered safe for most women. You should not take it if you are pregnant; at this time, there is limited data on the safety of taking Plan B or Plan B One-Step while pregnant.

Potential side effects of Plan B or Plan B One-Step include:

nausea
abdominal pain
fatigue
headache
menstrual changes
dizziness
breast tenderness
vomiting
diarrhea
Plan B or Plan B One-Step causes less nausea and vomiting than ECPs that contain both estrogen and progestin. And, you may be able to reduce any nausea or vomiting by taking the pill on a full stomach. Eating small, frequent meals over 24 hours may also help.

With Plan B or Plan B One-Step, you may also have some unexpected bleeding. It should go away by the time of your next period. However, it is possible that Plan B or Plan B One-Step may cause your next period to be heavier or lighter than usual. It may also come earlier or later than is normal for you. If you don't get your period within three weeks, get a pregnancy test to make sure you're not pregnant.

Now...what happened to me, on the other hand, was something much more severe...

First, I became flu-like. That hit gradually over the course of about 9 hours from taking the first pill. I ate before and after taking the pill, as instructed, but it did little to help me fight nausea. By the 10th hour I was almost projectile vomitting and dry heaving pretty much constantly when my stomach had been completely emptied. That went on pretty consistently for 5 days. I was barely able to remain hydrated, and ever mind trying to get any real nutrition. On top of the nausea I began to have what was probably the most insanely heavy "period" I've ever experienced about two days in to taking the meds. I actually bought Depends to handle the situation. And the cramps....dear god, the cramps. In addition to the muscle fatique from the vomitting I also had cramps that made me feel like my uterus was in a vice grip. They doubled me over in pain at some points.

For reference...I took the pill about 7 hours after the "oops" moment, and during a time when I would have been outside the normal range for optimum fertility within my monthly cycle. Statistically, the odds that the reaction was from the accidental termination of an existing pregnancy were pretty much non-existent, and the pregnancy test had reported negative prior to taking the medication.

Again, as I said before, I'm sure most girls wouldn't experience what I did...but can you imagine going through that kind of reaction alone? Or having to tell your parents about the situation because you're so sick you're afraid you need immediate care?
 
To me, birth control is a better alternative to abortion.

Is this really abortion? It seems like it's getting earlier and earlier when we define the beginning of "life". At the pace we're heading to a point where a whole bunch of adolescent young men will be in prison using an old sock as evidence.
 
Last edited:
Lol! Funny one...

The crime? 'Baitin' in the 2nd degree.

That presents an interesting question. How would you classify the severity of the masturbation? Would we instead of to define the crime as "ejaculation in the nth degree"? Would first degree ejaculation include the intentional use of spermicidal agents during the commission of the crime? Would a third degree ejaculation refer to a wet-dream/uncontrolled emission situation? Or would that be considered "involuntary ejaculation"?
 
That presents an interesting question. How would you classify the severity of the masturbation? Would we instead of to define the crime as "ejaculation in the nth degree"? Would first degree ejaculation include the intentional use of spermicidal agents during the commission of the crime? Would a third degree ejaculation refer to a wet-dream/uncontrolled emission situation? Or would that be considered "involuntary ejaculation"?

Well, obviously, 1st degree includes at least two consecutive ejaculations and/or rawness of the genitals, and wanton disregard for one's genital sensitivity.

2nd degree 'baitin' (or "simple tuggin'") is 'baitin' until orgasm and/or ejaculate of 5 or more ml.

3rd degree 'baitin' is an extended jackin' without orgasm/ejaculation.

While 4th degree 'baitin' is a simple pleasurable pressure or touch applied to aroused genitals without intent to 'bait.
 
Well, obviously, 1st degree includes at least two consecutive ejaculations and/or rawness of the genitals, and wanton disregard for one's genital sensitivity.

2nd degree 'baitin' (or "simple tuggin'") is 'baitin' until orgasm and/or ejaculate of 5 or more ml.

3rd degree 'baitin' is an extended jackin' without orgasm/ejaculation.

While 4th degree 'baitin' is a simple pleasurable pressure or touch applied to aroused genitals without intent to 'bait.

So if adjusting/scratching leads to pleasure or arousal then you're breaking the law. How stressful.
 
Plan B doesn't cause abortions when used as instructed. It prevents pregnancy from beginning at all.

Either way, it's an attempt to avoid the consequences of a consentual act.


This non-argument is refuted by the fact that the potential consequences of that action are eliminated through contraception.

No, they are LIMITED through contraception. They are not ELIMINATED. I can cite a large number of women I've known who have gotten pregnant while using condoms, oral contraceptives, and one a decade after she had her tubes tied.


Unwanted pregnancies have what benefit again? Seriously, there's absolutely no reason to inhibit women from obtaining these. Absolutely make any side effects known, as with any medication.

It is not OUR place to make the decision against what FATE has put in our laps. Especially after we have made a knowing choice to engage in a potentially risky activity.


From what I've read (and in no way is it exhaustive), it seems the majority of the concern is about the moral and social implications of providing young girls with a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Seems the FDA has deemed it relatively safe as a means of preventing pregnancy in the first place. Again, from the little bit I've read, this seems more like a moral judgement call than a rational, evidence based assessment.

At least for me it is entirely a moral judgement and I won't make any bones about it.
 
Either way, it's an attempt to avoid the consequences of a consentual act.

So is a condom, by that ****ing definition.




No, they are LIMITED through contraception. They are not ELIMINATED. I can cite a large number of women I've known who have gotten pregnant while using condoms, oral contraceptives, and one a decade after she had her tubes tied.

Well, no you can't cite a "large number" of women. You are correct that it's not fool-proof. Why is that important?




It is not OUR place to make the decision against what FATE has put in our laps. Especially after we have made a knowing choice to engage in a potentially risky activity.

Yes it is our place. Free will has that express purpose.

At least for me it is entirely a moral judgement and I won't make any bones about it.

Your moral judgment appears to be based in things that are factually inaccurate.
 
As Tessa has so eloquently explained, this pill can have some pretty dramatic side-effects. This is reason enough for people who are not old enough to drive not to have unrestricted access to this medication. Parents need to know if their child is ingesting something that can cause the effects Tessa experienced.
 
Obama: Morning-after pill decision 'common sense'


What do you think? Should this pill be allowed to be sold next to the condoms? They are about $50, according to the article, so people most likely wouldn't be buying them as they do condoms. Also, think of how often the pharmacy is often open. I know that sometimes when I have a cold by the time I can get to the store the pharmacy is closed. The sooner you take this pill the more effective it is. So what do you think?



I think it should be prescription-only.

I know it seems to defeat the 'immediate access' reasoning - but it's a serious medication that should not be used lightly and without approval and oversight form a DR. It can cause a variety of health issues and some people - because of serious health concerns - should not take it at all.

What people should do is see a DR - get the pill - and keep it at home if they need it.

It makes no sense to me to have birth control pills be prescription-only . . . yet a pregnancy-prevention pill such as this be over-the-counter.
 
Last edited:
Unwanted pregnancies have what benefit again? Seriously, there's absolutely no reason to inhibit women from obtaining these. Absolutely make any side effects known, as with any medication.

The issue to me is that the side effects of Plan B can be a more significant than your run-of-the-mill OTC medication. It's not particularly dangerous, but it can certainly put you out of commission for a day or two if you're sensitive to hormones. It's basically like taking a fistful of birth control pills all at once.

I think this ruling makes sense. I think it is logical to ensure the woman knows the possible and likely side-effects by ensuring she has direct contact with a pharmtech.

Tessa's experience is extreme, but not especially uncommon. Hormones are tricky things. It's far more common than an adverse reaction to, say, aspirin or paracetamol.

I can't think of anything with common side effects as potentially severe as Plan B's that's over the counter. This is not to say most women will have side effects that bad - most won't. But a pretty significant chunk will have side effects somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, which is still more than other OTC drugs, and which is certainly something we need to make sure they know.

However, for this ruling to make sense, I think pharmtechs should be prohibited from denying it to women.

I disagree it should be prescription. Plan B can be very uncomfortable, but not particularly dangerous. If a woman has health complications which would make it dangerous, this is the sort of thing she would have been told over and over again by her doctor already. The time-sensitive nature of the beast means that if you make it prescription, it would be impossible for women to get it during the time period when it's mostly likely to work.
 
Last edited:
It is not OUR place to make the decision against what FATE has put in our laps. Especially after we have made a knowing choice to engage in a potentially risky activity.

Really, what kind of flimsy world view is this? I suppose you're against seat belt use, vaccinations, insurance, any sort of medical intervention and the millions of other things we do to protect us against what FATE has in store for us? You won't get too far in life thinking this way. Or more likely your view is just that sexually active women don't get to do anything to put the odds in their favor. How....perfectly rational and unbiased of you. :roll:
 
So is a condom, by that ****ing definition.

Yes it is. The difference is that the condom/oral contraceptive is used before/during the act; whereas abortion and this pill are used AFTER the act.

You are correct that it's not fool-proof. Why is that important?

It's important because it's a constant reminder that we are not in total control of what happens in these situations. There is a higher power controlling the outcome no matter how hard we try to avoid it.

Yes it is our place. Free will has that express purpose.

Some of us don't believe that free will is as important as Fate. We can attempt to temper Fate's edicts, but we cannot avoid them entirely.

Your moral judgment appears to be based in things that are factually inaccurate.

Your viewpoint seems to be based on a total ignoring of morality.


Really, what kind of flimsy world view is this? I suppose you're against seat belt use, vaccinations, insurance, any sort of medical intervention and the millions of other things we do to protect us against what FATE has in store for us? You won't get too far in life thinking this way. Or more likely your view is just that sexually active women don't get to do anything to put the odds in their favor. How....perfectly rational and unbiased of you. :roll:

I am for making those things OPTIONAL, and allowing people to suffer the consequence of their own choices rather than forcing them to do something. I have no problem with using contraceptives. I just don't see them as a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to then say "well, I didn't want to get pregnant so I should be allowed to terminate this pregnancy as a matter of choice."
 
Back
Top Bottom