.....on who's right or wrong, or the reasons for this decision, but the statement "increased accessibility to emergency contraception would lead to greater teen promiscuity." is foolish on it's face. Boys and girls will "get together" without the thought, at the moment, if or not a pill is available in the morning. 
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Bush Adminbistration gives neocons another victory over science and reproductive freedom.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
12 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
How "safe" are the "morning after" pills (remember that BC pills were initially deemed "safe" until all the potential and real problems arose) and if you neoCOMS don't want teenagers able to buy firearms or even alcohol because they are too young or too irresponsible or whatever, why apply other reasoning to a "medication" that is essentially unproven (long term effects) and with the very real potential for abuse?
If one is "enough" for the morning after will 5 or 6 or 7 be enough for the week or month after when catamenia is missed? How much is an overdose?
While Del's comment "Boys and girls will "get together" without the thought, at the moment, if or not a pill is available in the morning." is legitimate so too is the comment that knowing ahead of time that an "easy solution" is readily available will inevitably increase promiscuity among those who would most likely refuse the "if you like/love me..." line.
While the rejection was unusual it was not unprecedented by a long shot Dave.
- Collapse -
The agency held out the possibility of a future approval if the company could prove the drug is safe for young girls or devise a plan that would keep Plan B on by-prescription-only status for girls younger than 16. In its letter, the FDA said keeping the drug prescription-only for adolescents had been discussed with the company.
So the agency decided to err on the side of safety for the benefit of young women and you think the administration is accountable for some transgression because of it. The agency even left the door open for approval with this obstacle removed. At least we now know that you're not one of those "safety first" kind of people.
Do you have a daughter in this age group? Does she know that your political ideology comes before her safety? I'm glad I don't have to worry about people like you making the decision when it comes to the safety of my daughter.
- Collapse -
Hi, Del.
That's a smokescreen -- there's zero reason why the medicine shouldn't be safe for those below 16. There might be a problem with those below the age of puberty -- but they wouldn't need the drug anyway! And, btw, <16 is precisely the group that the neocons don't want to have access to the drug at all. BTW, they're solving the embarrasing problem of over-ruling the science advisory bards, as when terms expire, the Bushies are systematically those who favor reproductive freedom with those who view women as human incubators with no rights of their own.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
- Collapse -
.
- Collapse -
Dave,
Good to hear we have an accredited biologist on this board, I was kinda feeling kinda lonely with my degree. But the funny thing is, I thought that I had learned that people's bodies undergo IMMENSE changes during puberty, and even the slightest thing, like the introduction of a foreign chemical, could have serious effects. While I don't know what the drug targets or how it functions, it is very possible that a girl under the age of 16 who uses it could suffer long term effects, even the loss of her reproductive ability. And thats not even mentioning the fact that a minor probably could not weigh the risks carefully if some were found.
Of course, the evil Bush administration couldn't have possibly been thinking about the safety of this drug, which has not been fully proven, even though they explicitly said that was the reasonf or denial and offered an easily workable alternative.
- Collapse -
Dirtyrich, Dave said, "there's zero reason why the medicine shouldn't be safe for those below 16. There might be a problem with those below the age of puberty", but I rather doubt that statement is based on medical expertise but just pure politics in his desire to criticize Bush.
Oh, BTW, just for the sake of trivia, I looked up that drug.
Each Plan B 100 mg tablet contains 0.75 mg of a single active steroid ingredient, levonorgestrel [18,19-Dinorpregn-4-en-20-yn-3-one-13-ethyl-17-hydroxy-, (17a)-(-)-], a totally synthetic progestogen. The inactive ingredients present are colloidal silicon dioxide, potato starch, gelatin, magnesium stearate, talc, corn starch, and lactose monohydrate. Levonorgestrel has a molecular weight of 312.45, and the following molecular formula: C21H28O2.
Under the cautions, warnings and such I found:
OVERDOSE
There are no data on overdosage of Plan B, although the common adverse event of nausea and its associated vomiting may be anticipated.
CONTRAINDICATIONS
Progestin-only contraceptive pills (POPs) are used as a routine method of birth control over longer periods of time, and are contraindicated in some conditions. It is not known whether these same conditions apply to the Plan B regimen consisting of the emergency use of two progestin pills. POPs however, are not recommended for use in the following conditions:
* Known or suspected pregnancy
* Hypersensitivity to any component of the product
* Undiagnosed abnormal genital bleeding
Carbohydrate Metabolism
The effects of Plan B on carbohydrate metabolism are unknown. Some users of progestin-only oral contraceptives (POPs) may experience slight deterioration in glucose tolerance, with increases in plasma insulin; however, women with diabetes mellitus who use POPs do not generally experience changes in their insulin requirements. Nonetheless, diabetic women should be monitored while taking Plan B.
But I guess that would be no problem for the 16 and under set, surely they will read all of the info on the box before they take it, watch out for such things, and go to a doctor if anything looks out of order.
- Collapse -
Dave's made it clear that he could care less....
- Collapse -
They don't TEACH that any more, they vote on it. Last such vote they decided (apparently) that NOT introducing strange and new chemicals (at the knowledgeable discretion of the underage user) might have serious effects. This is Democratic Compassion in action you see.
- Collapse -
O.K., Dave, you got to yell "Bushies" and "neocons" for your political reasons, so let's get beyond that and look at what we're talking about.
Plan B
- Collapse -
So obviously, it would be OK if you personally were held accountable for any adverse effects in those younger than 16, yes?
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic