APP - should plan b contraceptive be available to all post puberty females

should plan b contraceptive be available to all post puberty females

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
a federal judge and the fda disagree on this

By Jessica Dye and Toni Clarke
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge criticized the Food and Drug Administration over its refusal to make emergency contraceptionavailable to girls of all ages without a prescription, saying theagency's move to restrict distribution to consumers aged 15 and olderwas not realistic.
District Judge Edward Kormanon April 5 ordered the FDA to lift age restrictions on alllevonorgestrel-based emergency contraception - also known as the"morning-after" pill or "Plan B" - to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
At a hearing in Brooklyn, New York, on Tuesday, he said he wouldrule by the end of the week on the FDA's request to stay the order,which is slated to take effect May 10. The FDA has appealed the rulingto the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.
"I do think there is a principle that is a dangerous one of a court ordering the FDA to approve a drug," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told the Reuters Health Summit in New Yorkon Monday ahead of the hearing. "You have to step back and look at thisnot just in terms of Plan B but in terms of the precedent."
Late last month, the FDA saidit would allow girls as young as 15 years old to buy Plan B One-Stepcontraception, made by a unit of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd,without a prescription. Cashiers will still have to verify thecustomer's age before selling it. The agency said the move was based ondata provided by Teva that showed girls of that age could safely usethe drug without the intervention of a healthcare provider.
Korman called the decision "a lot of nonsense," saying that 15- and16-year-olds may not have photo identification needed to buy the drug.
The judge noted that the FDA's restrictions still apply to otherforms of emergency contraception, including a two-pill version of PlanB and its generic equivalents. These are only available to women 17 andolder with identification.
Korman also questioned the timing of the decision, made one daybefore the FDA filed its notice of appeal of the April order.
"I'm convinced the only reason you decided it when it was decidedwas to sugarcoat this appeal," Korman told a lawyer for the FDA, FarzinFranklin Amanat.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Janet Crepps of the Center forReproductive Rights, countered that the different access rules for PlanB One-Step and other forms of emergency contraception had created a"convoluted" system for girls and women seeking the drug in its brandname and generic forms.
"That's what happens when you let politicians instead of scientists make these decisions," Korman replied.
Emergency contraceptives generally sell for $10 to $80. Althoughthey can work as long as 120 hours after unprotected sex, they are mosteffective in the first 24 hours.
Asked about the ongoing court case, Teva Chief Executive JeremyLevin said the company provides medicines where they are needed.
"I'm not interested in getting into politics," he told the ReutersHealth Summit. "The bottom line is that we believe we are providing animportant medicine."
(Reporting by Toni Clarke in New York; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Prudence Crowther)

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-criticizes-fda-move-plan-b-agency-warns-112700529.html
 
as long as it is a contraceptive and not an abortificant, yes.....this would appear to be the case because "they can work as long as 120 hours after unprotected sex".....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as long as it is a contraceptive and not an abortificant, yes.....this would appear to be the case because "they can work as long as 120 hours after unprotected sex".....
Click to expand...
Good lord. What a stupid comment. By that definition anything but a condom or IUD is an abortifcant. Why don't you make things easier on yourself. If you want to deny women their reproductive rights why don't you start with repealing the 19th ammendment? It sure would make things a lot easier for you and it would put women right back where you think they should belong.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good lord. What a stupid comment. By that definition anything but a condom or IUD is an abortifcant. Why don't you make things easier on yourself. If you want to deny women their reproductive rights why don't you start with repealing the 19th ammendment? It sure would make things a lot easier for you and it would put women right back where you think they should belong.
Click to expand...

Yep...fucking rip out their uteruses at birth, then do a female circumcision and cut off their clitorises....that ought to get them to stop being the dirty fucking whores they are.

The Teapublican plan for abstinence only.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good lord. What a stupid comment. By that definition anything but a condom or IUD is an abortifcant.
Click to expand...

why?.....because you don't understand biology?......I thought you had studied it.....something which prevents a conception is different from something which destroys the organism after conception......contraception doesn't kill an organism which has already been conceived, it prevents conception....that is why it is called a contraceptive.....

if you are still confused ask your high school biology teacher to explain it to you.....

If you want to deny women their reproductive rights
Click to expand...

this may come as a surprise to you but killing is not reproducing.......don't pretend a right to kill is a right to reproduce.....
 
Steelplate said:
Yep...fucking rip out their uteruses at birth, then do a female circumcision and cut off their clitorises....that ought to get them to stop being the dirty fucking whores they are.
Click to expand...

you don't even want them to get old enough to have a uterus.....you want them dead before they hit the ground running.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you don't even want them to get old enough to have a uterus.....you want them dead before they hit the ground running.....
Click to expand...

You want them saddled with children at 14...then bitch about welfare moms.


Edit: I am on record as being anti-abortion...btw. But you numbskulls can't disseminate. The difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.
 
Steelplate said:
You know...just last week you said you were OK with Plan B....Rush talk you out of it or something?
Click to expand...

I still am....I just take exception to idiots who think I'm calling women dirty fucking whores for having a child, when actually I'm calling them blood sucking murderers for killing it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I still am....I just take exception to idiots who think I'm calling women dirty fucking whores for having a child, when actually I'm calling them blood sucking murderers for killing it.....
Click to expand...

Not according to your initial response in this thread....which is why I went for the "shock and awe" approach.
 
Steelplate said:
Not according to your initial response in this thread....which is why I went for the "shock and awe" approach.
Click to expand...

???....there's nothing in my initial post which contradicts anything I have previously said......there is more than one type of "morning after" pill and one will terminate conception.....thus instead of "shock and awe" you opted for "I want to look stupid".........
 
"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

"Another error is the moment-of-conception fallacy. The joining of a human egg and sperm defines a new and unique human genotype. It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human. The newly fertilized egg may have the potential for a fully human existence, but that potential was there even before fertilization. The same can be said of all the fertilizations that might have been. The penetration of that egg by one sperm meant an early death for millions of competing sperm. It destroyed all hope for those millions of other unique human genotypes.

The moment-of-conception fallacy implies that fertilization is a simple process with never a doubt as to whether it has or has not happened. In reality, the "moment" is a matter of some hours of complex activity. There are elaborate biochemical interactions between the sperm and various layers of the egg membrane. The sperm gradually breaks up, and only its nucleus is established in the egg. Then both egg and sperm nuclei initiate radical changes before the fusion of the two nuclei. Many of the developmental events following this fusion were predetermined during the production of the egg. Genes provided by the sperm do not have discernible effects until embryonic development is well under way. A strictly biological definition of humanity would have to specify some point in this elaborate program at which the egg and sperm have suddenly been endowed with a single human life." From The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature, by George C. Williams.


"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.php

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/tp/abortionmyths.htm

http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/beckwith-nobis-web.htm


"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg http://www.ditext.com/feinberg/abortion.html
 
midcan5 said:
It does not produce any human hopes and fears and memories or anything else of moral importance implied by the term human.
Click to expand...

/shrugs....neither does the snipping of an umbilical cord......perhaps we should define life as the moment the organism overcomes its fears and stops being a liberal......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....there's nothing in my initial post which contradicts anything I have previously said......there is more than one type of "morning after" pill and one will terminate conception.....thus instead of "shock and awe" you opted for "I want to look stupid".........
Click to expand...

Yes....there are 4. And they all do the same thing....just with with different medicines....and can be taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I have been given to understand that there is one type that prevents attachment to uterine walls and another type that will actually destroy the organism after it has attached.......are you indicating this is not true?......
Click to expand...

From what I've read...they all work in the same manner. If you have something different I'd gladly read it. My information was done via a simple Google search. There are four basic medications, all of which do the same thing. Most of which are a combination.of.progesterone and estrogen..but one of which starts with an "M", and depending on the strength, can be used from 5-10 days after unprotected sex. The stronger variant isn't available in the US. That's why I didn't include it as #5.

On a personal note....emergency contraception is a huge breakthrough. It should be lauded, not condemned. I mean, thonk about it...it gives a huge option to a woman(or a man) who forgot, or in the heat of the moment....ignored...to take proper precautions.

I am sorry..but I'll bet that I am older than most posters on this forum at 48. I know what it's like to get caught up in a moment of passion. I can honestly say that on at least two occasions that it was a matter of "There by the Grace of God go I".

I don't revel in my weakness...but I understand loneliness...I understand the need for human touch and closeness.

Like I said....it's real...REAL easy to paint a picture of Devils with pitchforks throwing the carcasses of unborn children into a bonfire....but that is almost NEVER the case. I am not saying that there aren't some cruel motherfuckers out there, but most people are like you and I....and do not make these decisions lightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top