What do you think of the administration’s decision to limit the availability of Plan B pills among teen-agers?

I am not familiar with the health risks of plan B pills, but I believe the alternative of babies born to uneducated poor teenagers is not a good alternative. Just more freeloading wagon riding democrats who will blame the “rich” for their lifetime of poverty.

I think the fact that you look to the government to parent your children shows you’re too irresponsible to have children. I hope Plan C will not have so much trouble coming to market.

The most reasonable argument opponents make is that conservative or religious parents simply are not comfortable with having emergency contraception available to their children without a doctor’s intervention, and that whether or not this objection is rational, they have a right to control their own family’s approach to sexuality and to exercise a custodial position over their underage kids. Plan B poses no health risks and will be used correctly by girls under 17, but that’s only partially relevant to this objection; this is an argument about parental control, even for parents whose beliefs are founded on scientific or behavioral misunderstandings. These parents want the federal government to help them shape their children’s reproductive behavior by preventing them from accessing emergency contraception without a prescription.

@Doug

This argument is wrong because it demands that the federal government intercede in favor of the nebulous and poorly grounded interests of one faction of conservative or religious parents, and against two other groups whose interests should weigh more heavily. The first group is those parents who actively desire that their children be able to purchase emergency contraception without a prescription, in the well-grounded belief that their children may, despite their parents’ best intentions and efforts, have unprotected sex—after which they may hesitate to admit this to their parents, wait too long to schedule an appointment with a physician, miss the 72-hour window of effectiveness, and wind up having an abortion. The second group is the one who has the strongest standing of all: the minors themselves who would want to purchase emergency contraception. The interests of the conservative parents are nebulous because there’s no evidence that teenagers will be more likely to have (unprotected) sex if Plan B is available to them. In contrast, there’s abundant evidence that teenagers do have unprotected sex, and that they would be well served if Plan B were available over the counter, as would those of their parents who would prefer that they prevent pregnancy, rather than undergo an abortion or have a baby.

There is, of course, one last subset of parents who do have a concrete, non-nebulous interest here: those who would prefer that, if their underage daughters have unprotected sex and risk becoming pregnant, they conceive and deliver the child, even if the girls themselves would rather have used Plan B. This is an incredibly thorny familial conflict; it is not at all clear that parents have the right to force their underage daughters to bear children against their will. But that’s a values conflict for a different day. What I’m sure of is that such parents do not have a claim on federal government assistance to enforce their beliefs.

Just when I was getting used to the idea that we live in a plutocracy, I read this and see we live in a theocracy too. Every day it seems my civics teachers lied and we don’t live in a democracy. Instead we live in a land where the loudest (most money) win, not the majority. I guess common sense needs an advocacy group and a superPAC.

We promote sexier more open children ( via beauty pageants, Disney Cable Shows, Teen magazines, beauty products, Internet chat sites)… ) all re-inforcing the stereo\types that foster cutlural pressures to BE sexier….. which generally leads to sex. Its Utter ignorance not to deal the girmy reality that results when ever younger children participate in the cultural norm we’ve established.

Wrong-headed, politically motivated policies: 1

Fact-based Science: 0

Adolescents: -1

Just another day in America.

I feel that, when it comes to children younger than 16, the parents do need to be involved in helping deal with emergency contraception of this type. Note that this is for emergency use only, and pregnancy for young people, no matter the circumstance that caused it, IS an emergency situation. I realize that it may be difficult for children that young to be able to approach their parents with the facts of the situation, but the alternative is so much more serious and dangerous.

I think the administration was disingenuous in citing safety concerns; pretty clear this was a political decision (aren’t they all though?) I think it makes more sense to make the age 16 and up though, to align with the age of consent in majority of US states. If a 16 year old girl can legally have sex with a 60 year old man, I think she should be allowed access to any and all forms of contraception in the easiest manner possible.

Just another consequence of the the ridiculous amount of media attention focused on everything in Washington.

Because the administration knew the decision would get a lot of attention, the only upside was to appeal to a segment of the voting population where it is weak.

Between this and the debate over provision of birth control for women employed by religious organizations, I am amazed by the sheer lack of respect for women. These are our bodies, and you, Bishops of the Catholic Church and anyone else, are not the ones who are going to be carrying a baby for 9 months.

In addition, I would like to argue that we do not consume health care like we consume other goods. The idea that making birth control or Plan B available to more people will increase promiscuity among teens is ridiculous. Increased access will only serve to help women make better decisions regarding their reproductive health and give them control in a way that has been forbidden them for years.

In conclusion:

A 16 year old is not going to walk into a pharmacy and buy an expensive pill just because she can. Further, if schools focus on safe-sex practices in sex-education, instead of abstinence-only education we’d probably have to worry less about teens having unprotected sex and prompting the need for Plan B in the first place. Duh.

Instead of obstructing women’s access to emergency contraception, we should pass the damn thing as suggested by the FDA, and instead focus on how to help girls and women make more informed (by science-based fact) decisions about their health.

I think this new decision to limit access to under 17 is rational but it may be done to divert attention away from more pressing issues of the country or as a political campaign tactic. President has the GE CEO as appointee for jobs czar as GE is moving its Wisconsin facility to China, giving them $4 billion and losing American jobs. Does that decision seem right coming from our own jobs czar? I think the Plan B decision is probably another diversion that will be changed if Obama is re-elected_ slim chance now.

I would have made the age 16 instead of 17, if a person is considered responsible enough to drive (which also makes the back seat much more accessible) then they should be considered responsible enough to decide and read the directions on the package.

What concerns me about making this pill readily available to young people is the simultaneous decline in our awareness or concern about sexually transmitted diseases.

People aren’t really scared of HIV/AIDS anymore, or at least the way they used to be. A clinician at Planned Parenthood advised me that as a white female, it was unlikely that I would contract the disease, with or without protection. In the same vein (so to speak), a doctor recently advised my boyfriend when he went in for STD screening that, even if he had herpes, it wouldn’t really matter as long as there were no symptoms. He and I can’t be the only people who has been on the receiving end of such information.

If the public decreases its concern and awareness about transmitting STDs, then the only thing left to worry young people about engaging in unprotected sex is pregnancy. And with Plan B readily available to young people, unprotected sex is little more than a (relatively) expensive mistake.

I’m not trying to say that making this pill available to young people will encourage them to have promiscuous sex, because the truth is, there will never be a need for encouragement. I’m saying what it may do is encourage them to make poor decisions when they do.

I cannot believe all the men who have weighed in on this issue. Gentlemen, this is a women’s issue, so you should let the girls and women discuss it. Your role should be to supply the dollars to buy the pill if your sex partner/sig. other decides to use it.

As usual, just as Obama, a man, has decided which women will have access to the pill, so all you men feel you must decide to argue how you feel about girls and women having access to birth control.

For you, it’s all about retaining power over women. For women, it’s all about trying to exert some control over their own lives.

This is a purely political decision, and I strongly agree with it. This next election could be difficult for Obama to win, and the last thing he can do now is hand over a ‘gift’ to the Republicans.

If a Republican president gets elected next year, look to see women’s reproductive rights get decimated altogether, let alone Plan B. And, if a Republican president gets to appoint the next Supreme Court justice, women’s reproductive rights will be close to zero for the next generation of Americans. With that in mind, whatever temporary measures that need to be taken for Obama to win, I want him to take those measures.

Preventing Plan B from being an OTC medication, for the next year or so, is a small price to pay to ensure that all women have all the legal reproductive rights they need.

that should have said in the final sentence

“until the day youi die…”