Last month I wrote about the battle over Plan B, detailing the struggle between the administration of Barack Obama and the federal court system over the availability of emergency contraception over-the-counter without an age or identification requirement. Yesterday, the the Obama administration decided to stop blocking the availably of Plan B One-Step, after a federal appeals court ruled that the two pill formulation of Plan B must be made available over the counter to all women.
The administration had been challenging an April 5 order by U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman in Brooklyn, New York, requiring the medication to be made available without a prescription to all women and girls regardless of age. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s own studies found that Plan B was safe and effective and should be made more widely available as a means of emergency contraception.
The FDA has also said that making Plan B available over-the-counter is not a substitute for regular medical check-ups.
“Because the product (Plan B) will not protect a woman from HIV or AIDS or other sexually-transmitted diseases, it is important that young women who are sexually active remember to see a health care provider for routine checkups,” FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. stated in an agency news release in April. “The health care provider should counsel the patient about, and if necessary test her for, sexually-transmitted diseases, discuss effective methods of routine birth control, and answer any other questions the patient may have.”
Yet despite those findings, in 2011 Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, ruled that the pill would be available without a prescription only to those aged seventeen and over, and it would be kept behind the counter in pharmacies, with identification and proof of age required to purchase it.
That marked the first time that the FDA – a regulatory arm of the administration – was publicly overruled by a cabinet secretary.
After the most recent ruling by the appeals court, the Justice Department – facing losing battles in court – decided to drop its challenge to that ruling all together, making both the one and two pill formulations available in the pharmacy aisle without any age restriction. To clear up any confusion, the morning after pill is NOT an abortifacient. It prevents conception if taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse.
I support the administration’s decision from both a moral and a scientific standpoint. This may, indeed, be the lesser of two evils in an uncomfortable issue that we have an obligation as a society to confront. We don’t want 14 year-olds having sex, but if they do – and we know they will in many cases – we don’t want them having abortions, either. The increased availability of this pill will prevent that from happening. Allowing this type of over-the-counter access to the morning after pill is not going to make it more likely that teens will engage in sexual activity. The reality is that many young people are going to engage in that activity anyway, and this access will decrease unintended pregnancies, and in turn, abortions.
In this area as in many others, the best offense is a good defense – comprehensive sex education programs in our schools that give young people medically accurate information about sexuality, abstinence, and, if they are not going to abstain, how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. Ideally, parents would be discussing this topping with their children, but as evidenced by the high rates of STDs and unintended pregnancies among our youth, many young people are not getting such information at home. I think we can all agree that not all children live in an “ideal” home environment.
A report commissioned by the New Morning Foundation (NMF) – a South Carolina reproductive health advocacy organization – entitled “A Sterling Opportunity: 25 Years After the Comprehensive Health Education Act,” suggests that there is a critical need to reevaluate the CHEA and work as a community to ensure youth gain accurate information to make effective decisions about their reproductive health.
Twenty-five years after the law was passed, unintended pregnancy and the spread of HIV are still major issues affecting South Carolina’s youth. The sex-ed law, as written, has significant weaknesses that are barriers to its proper implementation. There are no objective evaluation processes in place to make sure the law is being followed as it was intended. There no mechanism to verify that sex education lessons are based on medically accurate facts and evidence-based materials or if personal opinions, religious beliefs and other non-scientific perspectives have made their way into the classroom.
The New Morning Foundation says that S.C. taxpayers spend nearly $200 million a year as a result of teen pregnancies. Its report states that “One of the most fiscally and ethically responsible actions our leaders can take today is to provide funding for effective teen pregnancy prevention programs that offer both comprehensive sex education and access to family planning health services. Simply put, these investments pay huge dividends, not only for individuals but also for society at large.”
A bill that would address this issue in South Carolina, H. 3435, is currently residing in the House Committee on Education and Public Works. It is the legislature’s attempt to rewrite South Carolina’s 25-year-old law.
Sponsored by Rep. B.R. Skelton (RINO-Pickens), the new bill would retain emphasis on abstinence education while requiring sex-education teachers to get training specific to reproductive health and pregnancy prevention, and requiring sex-education materials be comprehensive, medically accurate and based on scientific research. The bill reads:
All health education instruction must be verified and supported by research in compliance with scientific methods, published in peer-reviewed medical or health journals, be medically accurate and objective according to leading medical or health organizations including, but not limited to, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
At a news conference in April, Skelton said the state must do something to prevent teen pregnancies. Those pregnancies keep young people “from accomplishing what they could be accomplishing in life” and “sometimes (create) a generational dependency” on government that costs taxpayers, Skelton emphasized.
Last month, Rep. Andy Patrick (RINO-Beaufort) proposed an amendment to the bill that would water down the original definition of “medically accurate” to include information that has not been accepted by the medical or scientific community in peer-reviewed journals:
’Medically accurate information’ means information that has been supported by peer-reviewed research which complies with accepted scientific methods, published in or by medical, scientific, psychological, sociological, government or public health publications, organizations or agencies, or information presented or provided by a reputable organization or agency which has expertise relating to sexual health. (section 1, paragraph 9).
Passing that amendment would be a mistake. If we are to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, young people need scientific facts in this area, not unproven opinion.
The Obama administration and the court system have made the right decision regarding the availability of Plan B. Those who believe that easier access to emergency contraception will lead to an increase in teen sex are closing their eyes to the reality that teens are already having sex. If we have a tool that can help prevent unintended pregnancies – and by extension, abortions – we should use it. It is also my hope that the SC legislature will pas H3435 without Rep. Patrick’s anti-science amendment, thus using another tool – comprehensive sexual health education – to help prevent the need for emergency contraception in the first place.
Amy Lazenby is the associate opinion editor at FITSNews. She is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz.
***
***
51 comments
Well then LazyBee. I suspect we’ll be hearing from you soon well wishing your 8 year old daughter on her first abortion.
“Mommy’s so proud. My little baby is growing up. Yeah!! ”
:P
And PieInHisFace totally misses the point about this leading to fewer abortions…
Abortion on demand is abortion on demand. I won’t begin to profess when life starts, and you’re pompous for doing so.
And you missed the point that you are relinquishing your responsibility to your children and family to the gubmint.
I would have thought that your alias would have informed you about what happens when you let the gubmint take over your life.
Plan B doesn’t cause abortions, so what are you talking about?
Yeah, your 12.
You’re terribly uninformed. This is not about “abortion on demand.” This is about preventing abortions by preventing pregnancies.
I’m quite well informed and you clearly did not read my post, therefore I will help you simpleton.
I do not profess to know when life begins. Anyone that says they know the exact moment when life begins are… well edumacated. If use gots an edumacation then use is a whole lot more books smart than me.
Hence the condition of our country today.
I read every single word of your post. The scientific consensus, even among people who are pro-life, is that life begins at conception (when an egg is fertilized by sperm). Plan B prevents fertilization/conception. Thus, it does not cause abortions.
If life began earlier than conception, then you would be guilty of ending a life every time you masturbated and spilled sperm, which I’m sure is quite often. So now you’re educated with a bit of very common scientific knowledge – or, in your words, “edumacated” – I prefer to use real words in a discussion.
This article is not about abortion – it is about contraception and sex education. There, that’s a little reading comprehension to go along with your “edumacation.” Now, kindly let the grown ups discuss this issue. If you would like to read an educated point of view that is different from mine but that is educated, I refer you to the comments by “Smirks” above.
Allright, lets get this shit straight. Plan B’s primary vector of efficacy is not that it ‘prevents fertilization’.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel
“Levonorgestrel (or l-norgestrel or D-norgestrel) (Plan B, Next Choice, and others[1])”
“…contraceptive pill is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation”
From the Plan B website
http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx
“… It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary.”
“… MAY (emphasis mine) also work by preventing fertilization…”
You just go ahead and keep on spouting your BS feminista MSM lines. I can read. Every other website that promotes this crap through sales or advertising (WebMD) state concisely and clearly that it MAY prevent fertilization. This drug definitely prevents implantation, thereby making it an abortifacient. More easily stated, this is abortion on demand. It’s not right that a child should die because he/she simply came into existence.
If a woman, or a husband and wife (where the wife is ill) can have her life saved by an abortion, it’s none of my business. That’s between her/them and God. Everything else is murder, plain and simple. You can’t sugar coat it any other way. Personally I know that you purposefully fail to use the brain God gave you when you choose to believe anything else. But, I guess that’s why military people die for you. So you can spout BS all day. Why don’t you go find a dead soldier to protest. Leave the thinking to those of us that have a brain.
Have a Fracked Day you commie socilista feminsit nazi whores!! :)
Regarding your offer to educate me, lets try using your real name first. Then I know whom is educating me, and if they are capable of doing so.
Plan B, and other products that contain Levonorgestrel, used for the purpose of birth control are abortifacients. There primary vector of efficacy is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That’s an abortion. Plain and simple.
You’re kind of a dick.
I can totally understand this post after reading the one left on sheeple. You really are a lawyer aren’t you?
Well then LazyBee. I suspect we’ll be hearing from you soon well wishing your 8 year old daughter on her first abortion.
“Mommy’s so proud. My little baby is growing up. Yeah!! ”
:P
And PieInHisFace totally misses the point about this leading to fewer abortions…
Abortion on demand is abortion on demand. I won’t begin to profess when life starts, and you’re pompous for doing so.
And you missed the point that you are relinquishing your responsibility to your children and family to the gubmint.
I would have thought that your alias would have informed you about what happens when you let the gubmint take over your life.
Plan B doesn’t cause abortions, so what are you talking about?
Yeah, your 12.
You’re terribly uninformed. This is not about “abortion on demand.” This is about preventing abortions by preventing pregnancies.
I’m quite well informed and you clearly did not read my post, therefore I will help you simpleton.
I do not profess to know when life begins. Anyone that says they know the exact moment when life begins are… well edumacated. If use gots an edumacation then use is a whole lot more books smart than me.
Hence the condition of our country today.
I read every single word of your post. The scientific consensus, even among people who are pro-life, is that life begins at conception (when an egg is fertilized by sperm). Plan B prevents fertilization/conception. Thus, it does not cause abortions.
If life began earlier than conception, then you would be guilty of ending a life every time you masturbated and spilled sperm, which I’m sure is quite often. So now you’re educated with a bit of very common scientific knowledge – or, in your words, “edumacated” – I prefer to use real words in a discussion.
This article is not about abortion – it is about contraception and sex education. There, that’s a little reading comprehension to go along with your “edumacation.” Now, kindly let the grown ups discuss this issue. If you would like to read an educated point of view that is different from mine but that is educated, I refer you to the comments by “Smirks” above.
Allright, lets get this shit straight. Plan B’s primary vector of efficacy is not that it ‘prevents fertilization’.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel
“Levonorgestrel (or l-norgestrel or D-norgestrel) (Plan B, Next Choice, and others[1])”
“…contraceptive pill is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation”
From the Plan B website
http://www.planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx
“… It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary.”
“… MAY (emphasis mine) also work by preventing fertilization…”
You just go ahead and keep on spouting your BS feminista MSM lines. I can read. Every other website that promotes this crap through sales or advertising (WebMD) state concisely and clearly that it MAY prevent fertilization. This drug definitely prevents implantation, thereby making it an abortifacient. More easily stated, this is abortion on demand. It’s not right that a child should die because he/she simply came into existence.
If a woman, or a husband and wife (where the wife is ill) can have her life saved by an abortion, it’s none of my business. That’s between her/them and God. Everything else is murder, plain and simple. You can’t sugar coat it any other way. Personally I know that you purposefully fail to use the brain God gave you when you choose to believe anything else. But, I guess that’s why military people die for you. So you can spout BS all day. Why don’t you go find a dead soldier to protest. Leave the thinking to those of us that have a brain.
Have a Fracked Day you commie socilista feminsit nazi whores!! :)
Regarding your offer to educate me, lets try using your real name first. Then I know whom is educating me, and if they are capable of doing so.
Plan B, and other products that contain Levonorgestrel, used for the purpose of birth control are abortifacients. There primary vector of efficacy is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That’s an abortion. Plain and simple.
You’re kind of a dick.
I can totally understand this post after reading the one left on sheeple. You really are a lawyer aren’t you?
I still say to have no age requirement has a certain tinge to it that I can’t support, due to:
1) As a minor, the parent(s)/guardian(s) are tasked with making decisions regarding your health and should at the very least be aware of your health needs or medication you are taking.
2) Plan B, when requested by someone under the age of consent, likely means that some form of sexual abuse and/or statutory rape has occurred. This is not something that should be kept secret from a parent/guardian for obvious reasons, unless the parent/guardian is the abuser or rapist, at which that should not be kept secret from the authorities for obvious reasons.
3) While the “emergency need” of Plan B does dictate that timely dispensing of the medicine is often necessary and therefore partly justifies relaxed rules, I’m concerned that a minor does not necessarily fully understand the health risks that come with Plan B (which are admittedly few and rarely serious, but still), how to properly take it (for instance, a preteen taking three Plan B’s “just to be safe”), does not properly understand that it does nothing to prevent STD’s, does not properly understand it is not a pill to take in lieu of actual birth control, etc.
I’m someone who would talk to my daughter about birth control
And when the abuser is a parent who is not willing to talk to his daughter about birth control… What would you do in that situation? Most children that age who are abuSed are abused by a parent or other close relative. I would like for this medicine to be available in those cases, as well as in cases where there is just no parent willing to discuss it.
A policy of handing out Plan B to anyone regardless of age usurps a parent’s control over a minor’s health care. Keep in mind that a minor is someone who is young enough to be deemed unfit to make certain decisions regarding health (plastic surgery, tattoos, smoking, drinking, etc.).
I feel that a parent who isn’t engaging with their child about sexual activity, regardless of whether or not they intend to purchase birth control, is being negligent. Then again, a parent that doesn’t engage with their child about drugs and alcohol, or guns, or strangers, or gangs, or anything else that could pose danger to their children, is being negligent. A lot of those have age restrictions or laws against such activities, too, and for good reason. There’s very little health risks linked to very moderate consumption of alcohol, but we still limit selling a single can of Bud Light to a 12-year-old.
If a parent/guardian is the abuser, or another family member, or the person doesn’t feel safe reporting the abuse to their parents for good reason, law enforcement should be notified instead so that they can handle it. I wouldn’t deny Plan B to a girl who was raped or was in an incestuous relationship of some kind, far from it, but I want whoever did it to be prosecuted for their acts.
If the child is taking Plan B in lieu of birth control, that’s a problem. If it is due to the fact that their parent(s)/guardian(s) won’t buy it for them, then if they are going to directly disobey their parents, they should at least take some other precautions, such as condoms or other contraceptives that do not have age limits, restrictions, ID requirements, etc. Parents should not be “obligated” to purchase birth control, and purchase of birth control doesn’t give a teen a free pass to get laid by whoever. Birth control doesn’t stop STDs and has the potential to not work, especially if used improperly.
My beef isn’t that we are handing out Plan B to minors at all, period, it is that there is no instrument to report an obvious crime, no requirement to instruct the teenager of proper use, and no notification of any sort to anyone that this person, who is not able to make decisions about their healthcare on their own, has received some sort of medicinal care.
“Should” being the operative word to most of your arguments. How do you ensure a 13 yr old raped by her father get to law enforcement in the 72 hours it will take her to possibly get pregnant, and is law enforcement going to buy emergency contraception for her? Also, yes, kids should know about other forms of contraception – that’s where sex-ed comes in, especially for the kids who aren’t getting it at home. I hope Skelton, who seems to be realistic about all this, gets his bill passed.
The emergency need for contraception doesn’t negate the emergency need to capture and prosecute a criminal. The teenager in such a circumstance should be able to get Plan B, but the pharmacist should legally be required to alert the cops.
“Should.” And I’m pretty sure a scared and abused 13 year old isn’t going to the cops to tell them her daddy rapes her. Make no mistake, I’d love for the guy to get caught, too, but I’d also like to prevent the incest baby.
But your entire argument is based on the worst case scenario. These things, abortions for these actions, just aren’t prevented, nor should they be. Illness, Rape. What about the hundreds of thousands of babies that are murdered on demand. When is that ever appropriate?
This is my concern. I agree with those who say that the best place for sex ed is in the home, but let’s get real – way too many kids live in homes where they don’t have parents like Smirks, who makes some good points. These are the kids who need the info, and yes, the morning after pill, the most. It makes me uncomfortable, sure, but I’d rather have that option available to those kids.
I still say to have no age requirement has a certain tinge to it that I can’t support, due to:
1) As a minor, the parent(s)/guardian(s) are tasked with making decisions regarding your health and should at the very least be aware of your health needs or medication you are taking.
2) Plan B, when requested by someone under the age of consent, likely means that some form of sexual abuse and/or statutory rape has occurred. This is not something that should be kept secret from a parent/guardian for obvious reasons, unless the parent/guardian is the abuser or rapist, at which that should not be kept secret from the authorities for obvious reasons.
3) While the “emergency need” of Plan B does dictate that timely dispensing of the medicine is often necessary and therefore partly justifies relaxed rules, I’m concerned that a minor does not necessarily fully understand the health risks that come with Plan B (which are admittedly few and rarely serious, but still), how to properly take it (for instance, a preteen taking three Plan B’s “just to be safe”), does not properly understand that it does nothing to prevent STD’s, does not properly understand it is not a pill to take in lieu of actual birth control, etc.
I’m someone who would talk to my daughter about birth control
And when the abuser is a parent who is not willing to talk to his daughter about birth control… What would you do in that situation? Most children that age who are abuSed are abused by a parent or other close relative. I would like for this medicine to be available in those cases, as well as in cases where there is just no parent willing to discuss it.
A policy of handing out Plan B to anyone regardless of age usurps a parent’s control over a minor’s health care. Keep in mind that a minor is someone who is young enough to be deemed unfit to make certain decisions regarding health (plastic surgery, tattoos, smoking, drinking, etc.).
I feel that a parent who isn’t engaging with their child about sexual activity, regardless of whether or not they intend to purchase birth control, is being negligent. Then again, a parent that doesn’t engage with their child about drugs and alcohol, or guns, or strangers, or gangs, or anything else that could pose danger to their children, is being negligent. A lot of those have age restrictions or laws against such activities, too, and for good reason. There’s very little health risks linked to very moderate consumption of alcohol, but we still limit selling a single can of Bud Light to a 12-year-old.
If a parent/guardian is the abuser, or another family member, or the person doesn’t feel safe reporting the abuse to their parents for good reason, law enforcement should be notified instead so that they can handle it. I wouldn’t deny Plan B to a girl who was raped or was in an incestuous relationship of some kind, far from it, but I want whoever did it to be prosecuted for their acts.
If the child is taking Plan B in lieu of birth control, that’s a problem. If it is due to the fact that their parent(s)/guardian(s) won’t buy it for them, then if they are going to directly disobey their parents, they should at least take some other precautions, such as condoms or other contraceptives that do not have age limits, restrictions, ID requirements, etc. Parents should not be “obligated” to purchase birth control, and purchase of birth control doesn’t give a teen a free pass to get laid by whoever. Birth control doesn’t stop STDs and has the potential to not work, especially if used improperly.
My beef isn’t that we are handing out Plan B to minors at all, period, it is that there is no instrument to report an obvious crime, no requirement to instruct the teenager of proper use, and no notification of any sort to anyone that this person, who is not able to make decisions about their healthcare on their own, has received some sort of medicinal care.
EDIT: Here’s an important question. The whole “pro choice” movement is that it is a woman’s body, she has the right to choose. At what point does one have the right to choose what to medically correct, alter, add, remove, etc., to their body? Parents can refuse to allow a hospital to perform treatments and surgeries on their children, sometimes with catastrophic results to the child (for which the parents are then prosecuted for usually), but we give parents this ability of choice over their own child’s choice because more often than not a parent has more sensibility and knowledge and maturity. So, answer me this: When does the “choice” become yours to do anything regarding your body? Because surely we should adapt all laws to encompass that age, right?
“Should” being the operative word to most of your arguments. How do you ensure a 13 yr old raped by her father get to law enforcement in the 72 hours it will take her to possibly get pregnant, and is law enforcement going to buy emergency contraception for her? Also, yes, kids should know about other forms of contraception – that’s where sex-ed comes in, especially for the kids who aren’t getting it at home. I hope Skelton, who seems to be realistic about all this, gets his bill passed.
The emergency need for contraception doesn’t negate the emergency need to capture and prosecute a criminal. The teenager in such a circumstance should be able to get Plan B, but the pharmacist should legally be required to alert the cops.
“Should.” And I’m pretty sure a scared and abused 13 year old isn’t going to the cops to tell them her daddy rapes her. Make no mistake, I’d love for the guy to get caught, too, but I’d also like to prevent the incest baby.
But your entire argument is based on the worst case scenario. These things, abortions for these actions, just aren’t prevented, nor should they be. Illness, Rape. What about the hundreds of thousands of babies that are murdered on demand. When is that ever appropriate?
This is my concern. I agree with those who say that the best place for sex ed is in the home, but let’s get real – way too many kids live in homes where they don’t have parents like Smirks, who makes some good points. These are the kids who need the info, and yes, the morning after pill, the most. It makes me uncomfortable, sure, but I’d rather have that option available to those kids.
At the high cost of $55 a pill,many young women who need them won’t be able to buy them.
That’s a bargain compared to a $300+ abortion or the lifetime cost of raising a child.
Not to mention the fact that girls who had the $55 before but couldn’t have access to it without a prescription (and the cost of a doctor’s visit) will be able to get it. You think a teen who needs this carries around her parents’ insurance card, which would make it cheaper?
That’s a bargain compared to a $300+ abortion or the lifetime cost of raising a child.
At the high cost of $55 a pill,many young women who need them won’t be able to buy them.
That’s a bargain compared to a $300+ abortion or the lifetime cost of raising a child.
Not to mention the fact that girls who had the $55 before but couldn’t have access to it without a prescription (and the cost of a doctor’s visit) will be able to get it. You think a teen who needs this carries around her parents’ insurance card, which would make it cheaper?
Of course, you dimwit, teens are already having sex. That’s not the worrisome part. The thing that should occur to anyone with half a brain is the inevitability that making it so easy to stop unplanned pregnancies, we will undoubtedly see a spike in sexually transmitted diseases since there will be less of an urgency to “wrap it up”.
Of course, you dimwit, teens are already having sex. That’s not the worrisome part. The thing that should occur to anyone with half a brain is the inevitability that making it so easy to stop unplanned pregnancies, we will undoubtedly see a spike in sexually transmitted diseases since there will be less of an urgency to “wrap it up”.