Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFDA says the morning after pill is AOK safe for fecund females under 18. Sebelius overrules FDA and says that under 18 needs a scrip.
Pandering:
to parents?
To pro-lifers?
To wanting to birth more unwanted children from single teenage mothers because 18 years later they might vote D?
The distinction between a customer for this product and non-customer is not age related, it depends on whether one thinks oneself pregnant. That should not be age related, in a pragmatic world. In a political world there are other considerations.
But what are they, and how do they redound to BHO’s imagined advantage with this decision?
One of you might hit on an answer that will seem obvious to me after the fact. I have run through his voting blocs in my mind: youth [no], affluent upper middle class females [no], Jews [no], African Americans [no], Latinos [?], indies who like his FP [no]. I do not think Chicano voters will be moved by this, but maybe other Latinos?
Who will be pissed off? Women and yutes.
What am I missing?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
"What am I missing?"Follow the money?
LikeLike
"The distinction between a customer for this product and non-customer is not age related, it depends on whether one thinks oneself pregnant. That should not be age related, in a pragmatic world."That logic would argue that nobody under 18 should require parental consent (or as I might term it – supervision) for any drug, prescription or otherwise. I fail to see how non-supervision of a pregnant 12 year old is pragmatic. Isn't 18 (or some age thereabouts) the age of consent? I would argue the pragmatic approach would be to facilitate open lines of communication between minors and adults which, admittedly, is easier said than done. That said, allowing minors this ability undermines one the the mechanisms that actually promotes communication…obviously IMO.
LikeLike
Well, my understanding of the "morning after pill" is that it is taken the morning after (unprotected) sex so as to avoid a potential pregnancy should she be ovulating and an egg is fertilized. My thinking is that RU-486 advocates want it on the shelves just like condoms or spermicide since they do not view it as an abortificant but a birth-control device like the aforementioned rubbers. I'm guessing the FDA, at Obama's instruction, approved the OTC as a sop to the PP/NARAL crowd and Sebellius, at Obama's urging shot it down to look "reasonable" to middle America, especially to Kansan's as that's where Obama gave his campaign speech and where Sebellius is from (and may have to return to some day.). Upshot, nothing changes and everybody gets pandered to.
LikeLike
This pandering to pro-lifers. They can't handle the thought of a minor being sexually active. There are so many hypothetical cases where a woman under 18 would not be able to get parental permission. It fits into the Abstinence Only/No HPV Vaccine/Pre-marital Sex Is Wrong And Should Be Punished paradigm.
LikeLike
Dave! – this being a next day issue there is a huge problem with making it a scrip for anyone, provided the drug is not dangerous. I would have preferred if my eldest daughter had asked my permission to have sex when she was a senior in HS but she didn't. She told me the next day, which was better than not telling me, but in some ways it was more than I wanted to know. If she had asked me to get her this pill I would have said "sure" – but what if I could not get the scrip on time? She was 17, a National Merit Scholar, and she won a full five year scholarship to college. Would I have been pissed if I could not have got her that pill?No, this is not analogous to any other situation. It is either a scrip b/c it has its own medical implications that require a doc's intervention or it isn't. Whether girls tell their parents what they do is entirely a separate issue. Those that will, will and those that won't, won't. Or so my experience tells me.
LikeLike
TMW, that makes sense, in a typically [for politics] nonsense way. Have it both ways.I think it'll not score any points, though. I guess the Admin thinks it will minimize loss, from your view. BOLD.
LikeLike
yello:…pro-lifers. They can't handle the thought of a minor being sexually active. They can't? Really?Is it necessarily the case that to encourage minors to refrain from engaging in behavior X is to be unable to "handle the thought" of minors engaging in behavior X?
LikeLike
Catering to parents, who think they ought to know if their kids are taking morning after medications? I'd certainly want to know. Of course, that could be solved by parental notification. "Hold on while I call your dad, and you'll have it in a jiffy!"
LikeLike
"this being a next day issue there is a huge problem with making it a scrip for anyone"While it is called the "Day after" pill, it can be taken up to 72 hours after with the effectiveness decreasing only by about 6% (95 – 89). A large number of meds are time-critical and require scripts. It is the same chemical as used in certain BC pills (which require a script)…only it is a higher dose. If 800mg motrin requires a script, then I fail to see why this drug should be treated differently than that or BC pills. I have not read what the FDA reasoning was but my question would not be about Obama or Sebelius…it would be why the FDA is playing politics…If my daughter (when she gets to 17) were to ask me for this pill, my response would not be a simple 'sure'. I would probably get it for her (unlike the abortion pill, I am not philosophically opposed to this) but it would come with some discussion because I am responsible for this minor. I'd be ok (less so) with kevinwillis' suggestion of parental notification as that would generate the conversation we should have.
LikeLike