Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

CanadaJohn said:

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be the first to apologize if HHS rewrites or rescinds its mandate and adult females now have to pay for their own morning after pills and insurance companies won't have to. I don't believe that day will ever come as long as Obama is President.

Click to expand...

Well the FDA Oked the over the counter use.
So now women and teens without a prescription for MAPs will have to pay out of pocket for them.

roguenuke said:

I provided additional evidence that doctors say that it can cause blood clots. Granted it was after an edit, but it is there.

Click to expand...

Don't forget, pregnancy can cause blood clots and death too. Pregnancy has a far greater fatality rate then the pill.

My close friend who died a few years ago from breast cancer was so upset when FDA approved Prilosec as an OTC drug.
It was more expensive for her to buy it OTC then her insurance co pay had been.

minnie616 said:

Well the FDA Oked the over the counter use.
So now women and teens without a prescription for MAPs will have to pay out of pocket for them.

Click to expand...

I want to be clear here because I believe both you and Sangha are misleading and not representing what is actually happening in the US at this time.

As I understand it, HHS mandated that the morning after pill had to be provided under insurance policies when the ACA was passed in 2010. Then, in 2011, they mandated that Catholic institutions, other than churches, had to include it in their insurance benefits plans free of charge to employees and they placed a one year moratorium on it once the Catholic mandate was challenged in court meaning it wouldn't take effect until August 2013.

The court case, that is the subject of this thread, related to a reproductive rights organization challenging the legality of FDA mandates that any child under the age of 17 must have a prescription from a doctor in order to get the morning after pill. The court ruled that those under 17 would no longer be required to have a prescription in order to get the pill over the counter which indicates to me that prior to the court case all adult women 18 and above could get the morning after pill over the counter without a prescription.

Are you claiming that the HHS mandate requiring that the morning after pill be covered by insurance plans only related to those who were given a prescription for the pill from their doctor, even those over 18 and above who didn't require a prescription to get the pill? Are you claiming that adult women went to the doctor to get a prescription for the morning after pill so that their insurance plan would cover it even though there is nothing in the HHS mandate that stipulates this must be done via prescription? Are you claiming that insurance companies were paying for this over the counter drug if a doctor prescribed it?

I don't believe it.

roguenuke said:

I provided additional evidence that doctors say that it can cause blood clots. Granted it was after an edit, but it is there.

Click to expand...

I didn't see it and since you've been so dishonest (ex claiming that a statement from the representative of an org that claims that SSM promotes bestiality is "evidence" that Plan B can cause a blood clot) I see no point in reading any more of your links.

You have no evidence. Just dishonest claims

roguenuke said:

Others do, including the one from England.

I am saying we need to look into this. It is stupid to allow teens unlimited access when we know there is a strong possibility that young adult women are misusing this, certainly not using it just for "emergencies". Just study it, what is the problem with doing this? It won't really prevent a whole lot of teen pregnancies in that time, not given the current evidence we have on this.

Click to expand...

You haven't posted any evidence. Your nonsense from an organization that believes that SSM promotes beastiality does not count as evidence.

And no one is saying it shouldn't be studied. This is just another one of your dishonest arguments

CanadaJohn said:

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be the first to apologize if HHS rewrites or rescinds its mandate and adult females now have to pay for their own morning after pills and insurance companies won't have to. I don't believe that day will ever come as long as Obama is President.

Click to expand...

Again, if the insurance company pays for it, then the parent will see it when they get their EOB

Problem solved!!

CanadaJohn said:

I don't believe it.

Click to expand...

Of course you don't. It blows your moralistic blatherings out of the water.

Emergency Contraception | National Women's Law Center

Thanks to the new health care law, all new insurance plans are required to provide insurance coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including EC, without cost-sharing. However, plans do not have to cover those brands of EC that are available without a prescription, unless a woman gets a prescription for it.

Click to expand...

no authority by government to dictate to parents that minors, be given access to a pill.

sangha said:

Of course you don't. It blows your moralistic blatherings out of the water.

Emergency Contraception | National Women's Law Center

Click to expand...

So, according to you and your source, a woman and her doctor can basically commit a fraud on an insurance company by getting a prescription for an over the counter drug and the government is in on the scam, forcing the insurance company to not only pay for the fraudulent prescription but to also pay for the doctor visit and the writing of the prescription. And people wonder why healthcare in America costs so much.

I'm curious - since the morning after pill, by its name and purpose, is a pill to be used the morning after or shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, you're saying a woman would make an appointment for her doctor to prescribe a medication available over the counter. Since it's supposedly an emergency medication, I presume the prescription is for one pill because most women who aren't prostitutes wouldn't have multiple sexual emergencies would they?

Nothing about this whole situation makes sense to me. However, thanks for the information and I'll have to do more research before I'm satisfied. I will say, however, that it's clear from what you're saying and provided that indeed insurance companies are covering the costs of OTC contraceptives provided the woman gets the medically unnecessary prescription. You've proven your assertion false.

CanadaJohn said:

So, according to you and your source, a woman and her doctor can basically commit a fraud on an insurance company by getting a prescription for an over the counter drug and the government is in on the scam, forcing the insurance company to not only pay for the fraudulent prescription but to also pay for the doctor visit and the writing of the prescription. And people wonder why healthcare in America costs so much.

I'm curious - since the morning after pill, by its name and purpose, is a pill to be used the morning after or shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, you're saying a woman would make an appointment for her doctor to prescribe a medication available over the counter. Since it's supposedly an emergency medication, I presume the prescription is for one pill because most women who aren't prostitutes wouldn't have multiple sexual emergencies would they?

Nothing about this whole situation makes sense to me. However, thanks for the information and I'll have to do more research before I'm satisfied. I will say, however, that it's clear from what you're saying and provided that indeed insurance companies are covering the costs of OTC contraceptives provided the woman gets the medically unnecessary prescription. You've proven your assertion false.

Click to expand...

The situation you describe is certainly possible under the new law, but I suspect it will be politically untenable. The image of the USG participating in a fraud (as you correctly describe) will not sit well.

iguanaman said:

Right. Just because a child is yours, why should you feed it? Just don't abort a fetus, that would be wrong. Once it pops out, it is on its own.

Click to expand...

If the child is mine why can't I determine what's best for it? Or should I depend on a government to make that determination for me? If a 13 year old is competent enough to deal in contraceptives then why should the society care at what age he/she is involved in child bearing. After all, if we are but the result of millions of years of evolution, then we certainly can be no more special than any other mammal? Right?

CanadaJohn said:

I absolutely agree with your last statement, however, I fail to see how allowing a 13 yr old to act on her own in such circumstances helps her grow and learn and get the help she needs as she develops into a woman. I'm totally opposed to letting 13 yr olds grow up on their own and sink or swim without guidance in such serious matters.

Click to expand...

So am I. Unfortunately, we can't be there for every single one of them. At least we can try to prevent any more children from being born into such circumstances though.

sangha said:

Yeah, I think that would probably be best.

And aspirin probably wasn't the best analogy, but the fact is, just about every drug can be dangerous for some people. It's just that those drugs are not related to sex.

Click to expand...

It is not just because it is about sex and claiming every drug can be dangerous does not negate that the is specific lethal complexities with MAPs.

CanadaJohn said:

I want to be clear here because I believe both you and Sangha are misleading and not representing what is actually happening in the US at this time.

As I understand it, HHS mandated that the morning after pill had to be provided under insurance policies when the ACA was passed in 2010. Then, in 2011, they mandated that Catholic institutions, other than churches, had to include it in their insurance benefits plans free of charge to employees and they placed a one year moratorium on it once the Catholic mandate was challenged in court meaning it wouldn't take effect until August 2013.

The court case, that is the subject of this thread, related to a reproductive rights organization challenging the legality of FDA mandates that any child under the age of 17 must have a prescription from a doctor in order to get the morning after pill. The court ruled that those under 17 would no longer be required to have a prescription in order to get the pill over the counter which indicates to me that prior to the court case all adult women 18 and above could get the morning after pill over the counter without a prescription.

Are you claiming that the HHS mandate requiring that the morning after pill be covered by insurance plans only related to those who were given a prescription for the pill from their doctor, even those over 18 and above who didn't require a prescription to get the pill? Are you claiming that adult women went to the doctor to get a prescription for the morning after pill so that their insurance plan would cover it even though there is nothing in the HHS mandate that stipulates this must be done via prescription? Are you claiming that insurance companies were paying for this over the counter drug if a doctor prescribed it?

I don't believe it.

Click to expand...

I guess you were mistaken.
Apparently the MAPs were not to be covered by ACA from the beginning.

While providing easier access to emergency contraception will likely increase its use by women and teens, One-Step’s $50 price could still present a barrier for teens and low-income women. Insurance plans typically don’t cover over-the-counter products, and the Obama administration has indicated that emergency contraception, even by prescription, doesn’t fall into the category of contraception that the federal Affordable Care Act mandates must be covered without any co-payments.

Click to expand...

http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/he...prescription/4OlRhnEd2udYqX5fRA8vPM/story.htm

CanadaJohn said:

So, according to you and your source, a woman and her doctor can basically commit a fraud on an insurance company by getting a prescription for an over the counter drug and the government is in on the scam, forcing the insurance company to not only pay for the fraudulent prescription but to also pay for the doctor visit and the writing of the prescription. And people wonder why healthcare in America costs so much.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. When all parties understand what's going on, and no one has lied to anyone, it can't be anything but a fraud! :screwy

joko104 said:

It is not just because it is about sex and claiming every drug can be dangerous does not negate that the is specific lethal complexities with MAPs.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any evidence of these "specific lethal complexities with MAPs" but if you have any info, I'd be happy to read it

sangha said:

I haven't seen any evidence of these "specific lethal complexities with MAPs" but if you have any info, I'd be happy to read it

Click to expand...

I would too. I keep thinking about how "the pill" was safe. How Premarin was safe. How RU-86 was safe. How Jaz was safe. And how this new pill may only be equally as safe or far more dangerous when used by children whose bodies are still developing.

nota bene said:

I would too. I keep thinking about how "the pill" was safe. How Premarin was safe. How RU-86 was safe. How Jaz was safe. And how this new pill may only be equally as safe or far more dangerous when used by children whose bodies are still developing.

Click to expand...

I asked for evidence, not speculation

nota bene said:

I would too. I keep thinking about how "the pill" was safe. How Premarin was safe. How RU-86 was safe. How Jaz was safe. And how this new pill may only be equally as safe or far more dangerous when used by children whose bodies are still developing.

Click to expand...

I worry about children with it because they might take it when it's too late. It's only supposed to be used up to 72 hours after intercourse. I don't know what happens in that case (taking it too late). Also, if they are taking some other medications, there could be interactions.

ChrisL said:

I worry about children with it because they might take it when it's too late. It's only supposed to be used up to 72 hours after intercourse. I don't know what happens in that case (taking it too late). Also, if they are taking some other medications, there could be interactions.

Click to expand...

The only difference is that a pregnancy is not prevented.

And I know of no other medicine that presents a danger of interactions. Do you?

ChrisL said:

I worry about children with it because they might take it when it's too late. It's only supposed to be used up to 72 hours after intercourse. I don't know what happens in that case (taking it too late). Also, if they are taking some other medications, there could be interactions.

Click to expand...

Or take it too often. Any number of worrisome possibilities, including juvenile-onset diabetes. I've known several kids who went through scary rebellion about their insulin.

sangha said:

I haven't seen any evidence of these "specific lethal complexities with MAPs" but if you have any info, I'd be happy to read it

Click to expand...

Message #20 on page 2 of this thread. Most notable is the potential for a ectopic pregnancy. I could find other material to explain this can be lethal. There are, of course, other dangerous side effects.

A plus of selling them out of the pharmacy and with a record kept, but no prescription, could address this somewhat by basic warning being given. It is unlikely a 16 year old would (or even could) read the micro legalistic print the put on warning sheets.

sangha said:

The only difference is that a pregnancy is not prevented.

And I know of no other medicine that presents a danger of interactions. Do you?

Click to expand...

How do you know that? Are you a doctor?

sangha said:

I asked for evidence, not speculation

Click to expand...

Spare me your snarkiness please. I am unaware of any studies of pubescent girls taking Plan B. This could be, of course, because it's not widely available to them yet. In the meantime, I have pointed to multiple drugs that have been regarded as safe that turned out not to be. It's not unreasonable to worry that this new pill will be any different, particularly since children will have access to it.