won't somebody please think of the children!

[Schildog]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-usa-planb-idUSBRE95A02O20130611

 

(Reuters) - The Obama administration will scrap age restrictions on the sale of emergency contraception pills, making the morning-after pill available to women and girls without a prescription.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a letter on Monday that it would comply with a court's ruling to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step, withdrawing its appeal on the matter. The move closes a battle over the pill that has lasted over a decade, but could raise new controversy for President Barack Obama.

Until recently, the pill was only available without a prescription to women 17 and older who presented proof of age at a pharmacist's counter. Critics say unfettered access could lead to promiscuity, sexual abuse and fewer important doctor visits if readily available for purchase.

Advocates for such emergency pills say they help reduce unwanted pregnancies or abortions and that quick access for women of all ages is critical for the medicines to work. The pill is most effective when taken within 72 hours of intercourse.

The decision "will make emergency contraception available on store shelves, just like condoms, and women of all ages will be able to get it quickly in order to prevent unintended pregnancy," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards.

Senior administration officials described the move on Monday as a reaction to the reality of having lost several rounds of litigation on the issue.

In April, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled that the drug should be made widely available, blasting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for what he said was an "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable" decision to reject a citizen petition that called for ending age restrictions.

Last week, an appeals court said that a two-pill version of the drug can be sold over-the-counter without age restrictions even while the federal government fights Korman's ruling.

Obama has already come under fire in the national debate on birth control for requiring religiously affiliated institutions, such as universities, to cover contraception for their employees as a benefit under his health reform law. Any new controversy over the morning-after pill would come as he seeks to defuse an outcry over the government's domestic surveillance programs and questionable actions at the Internal Revenue Service.

FDA CHANGES COURSE

The morning-after pill was approved by the FDA in 1999, but it took until 2009 to reach the over-the-counter market in limited fashion.

In 2011, the FDA decided to approve over-the-counter sales of the drug with no age limits. But U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ordered the agency to reverse course, barring girls under 17 from buying the pills without a prescription.

Obama supported that restriction, invoking his daughters. The timing, 11 months ahead of the presidential election, sparked criticism that he was trying to placate social conservatives.

Korman ordered the FDA in April to make emergency contraception available without age and point-of-sale restrictions, but said that the agency could lift restrictions on only the one-pill version of the drug, Plan B One-Step, if there was a significant difference between that and the two-pill version.

A few weeks later, the FDA granted a petition from Plan B One-Step's maker, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, to make the pill available without a prescription to girls as young as 15.

The FDA said on Monday it would lift the remaining age restrictions on Plan B One-Step once it received the appropriate application from Teva. Teva declined to comment.

The Department of Justice said in a letter to the judge that it will not seek to lift restrictions on the two-pill Plan B product, which it says is significantly different from the one-pill version. The one-pill version is more widely used.

"This decision by the administration affirms what feminists have been fighting for all along - the morning-after pill should be available to females of all ages, on the shelf at any convenience store," said Annie Tummino, lead plaintiff and coordinator of the National Women's Liberation.

 

obviously underage kids never have sex. this is going to change all of that.

[nate]

Really not a fan of this.  We don't need to give underage kids any more reasons to have unprotected sex.  Pregnancy isn't the only risk, also have to consider STDs.

[Mudville]

Nate, they are not looking for validation to have sex. This is going to have zero effect on the incidents of underage sex other than reduce the amount of 15 year old mothers out there.

[mtangelsfan]

and yet the schools can't give kids an aspirin without parental consent.

 

This is more government taking away parental rights.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Parental rights to ensure that kids don't have the final say in whether or not they can prevent a pregnancy?  All of us here know that when you're a teenager you aren't always prepared and it's hard to check your hormones.  The reality is that plenty of unprepared people have kids, some of them are younger and many times they end up getting taxpayer money because they can't support their child.  If this reduces unwanted pregnancies for unprepared people I'm all for it.       

[halobob]

and yet the schools can't give kids an aspirin without parental consent.

 

This is more government taking away parental rights.

Or is it the government giving kids more rights?

[mtangelsfan]

Parental rights in the sense of being able to have a say in what kind of drugs kids put in their bodies.

 

Over the counter means kids can just buy these with nobody telling them how they are used,.

[mtangelsfan]

Or is it the government giving kids more rights?

 

are you a parent?

[halobob]

are you a parent?

Nope.  Although the government has been taking our rights more and more lately I just don't think this classifies as a case of taking away rights.  I must say I am all for girls under the age of 17 who want to get the plan B pill to be able to get it.  

[mtangelsfan]

When you have kids you may feel differently about your children being able to put drugs into their bodies without any kind of guidance.

 

I agree that the government has been obliterating personal rights for a while now.  I just think the right to be able to be the guidance in your children's lives is one more thing they are taking away.

[arch stanton]

This is just one part of the discussion parents should have with teenagers.

[nate]

Nate, they are not looking for validation to have sex. This is going to have zero effect on the incidents of underage sex other than reduce the amount of 15 year old mothers out there.

 

It gives them one less reason not to have protected sex.  I know kids will have sex, I would just prefer they use a condom.

[Schildog]

When you have kids you may feel differently about your children being able to put drugs into their bodies without any kind of guidance.

 

I agree that the government has been obliterating personal rights for a while now.  I just think the right to be able to be the guidance in your children's lives is one more thing they are taking away.

 

agreed. bring parental rights like hitting children back while we're at it. 

[Mudville]

and yet the schools can't give kids an aspirin without parental consent.

 

This is more government taking away parental rights.

That is kind of an ironic statement. In a way it is refusing a 15 year old the ability to become a parent.

[Mudville]

It gives them one less reason not to have protected sex.  I know kids will have sex, I would just prefer they use a condom.

You can look at it as a green light but then again you should also look at it as preventing the kids doing far more harm to themselves, their families and society as a pregnant teenager.

[mtangelsfan]

agreed. bring parental rights like hitting children back while we're at it. 

 

What a stupid ass statement.

[Schildog]

What a stupid ass statement.

 

why? hitting children was acceptable up until not so long ago.  you're more worried about parental rights rather than having a child possibly bringing another child into the world. as we all know, nothing ever goes wrong with teenage pregnancies. 

[mtangelsfan]

and kids never missuse drugs either.

 

Please refrain from saying what I'm "more worried about". 

[HaloMagic]

It seems weird that this would be considered a removal of parental rights. This doesn't lessen your ability to parent your child. This lessens the government's ability to parent your child. That should be viewed as a good thing.

[mtangelsfan]

No, it actually doesn't.  It makes the parents less influential in a child's life. 

[Schildog]

No, it actually doesn't.  It makes the parents less influential in a child's life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mtangelsfan]

Great post.  You are two for three in this thread.

[HaloMagic]

It makes the government less influential. The effect on the parent is non-existent. If the only reason a child didn't get the morning after pill was because the government said they couldn't then the parent wasn't very influential in that aspect to begin with. A parent can still parent without the government helping them.

[mtangelsfan]

Do you believe a 15 year old child should be able to access life changing drugs like that without any kind of guidance?  This would be a different discussion if a parent had to go with the child to get the pill.

 

Do you believe that kids are inherantly wise enough to use drugs responsibly?  This is my big concern.

[TobiasFunke]

It seems weird that this would be considered a removal of parental rights. This doesn't lessen your ability to parent your child. This lessens the government's ability to parent your child. That should be viewed as a good thing.

This is how I see it