Women's Groups Pressure FDA on 'Morning-After' Pill

Childbirth has associated health risks.

ER visits are far more expensive than dropping into your friendly local drugstore. How many women have several hundred dollars for after-the-fact contraception?

My recollection is that while it can cause some discomfort from the influx of hormones, it would be a stretch to say it "f*cked up" everyone who took it.

Medical info, from my searches, won't publish the exact number. The closest I've found is that it's like taking 2 BC pills together, several times in one day. Most commonly listed side-effect is severe nausea (sometimes bad enough that women don't take the second dose), vomiting for 25%, cramping, headache, not recommended for women who smoke, have heart conditions, are over 35 (same as for BCP). It's 75% effective.

Here's a link to a table: Link

Most BCP are 20 - 30 mcg, so MAP would be like taking 4 - 5 BCP within 12 hours.

The article I read said that the FDA's objection was not based upon the safety of the pill but that it will increase promiscuity. That is the same old bull**** we get from anyone or anything connected to our government these days. They are out to protect our morals. Shades of 1984.

One of the responsibilities of government is money. If promiscuity does increase (and I have seen no studies that confirm or deny this), and the MAP is on 75% effective, we then either leave the government (tax payers) in the position of paying for more abortions or paying for more welfare babies, or paying for more law enforcement for abuse cases, etc, etc, etc. Sometimes "morality" is and economic issues, which is in the purvue of government agencies.

Idaho
On the contrary. The premise is that since the pill is tantamount to abortion it will lead to more promiscuity because there is little chance of getting pregnant. They are only concerned with the promiscuity not the fear of unwanted babies. In fact the pill would lower the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies
Remember the Bush doctrine only teach abstinance not protection.

STD's are still a financial burden and spread by promiscuity.

You are beginnig to sound like Bush with his WMD's. When there turned out to be none he changed his story.

There is valid point in what he says. I don't think it should be made available to children under the age of 18. Parents are made responsible for their children up to this point after that the kid can do what they please.

Why is it the left wants to take away parental control? There is a Senator sponsoring a bill that would make parents responsible for their 18-23 year child when it come to money matters, but they want 13 years olds to be able to get abortions without parental consent. Why the two different standards?

Baldimo--

Can you provide some details on:



Which Senator? Is this a serious bill or grandstanding? How, legally, can he expedt to get away with expecting someone else to pay the bills of another adult, even if they share DNA?

Liberals, Democrats, "the left," whatever you wish to label your political opponents; these are not a monolithic group of people. Lots of room for individualism, just like folks on your end of the political spectrum. Nobody assumes that Gungasnake, for example, speaks for the entire "right."

You probably even recognize this fact, as long as it's been more than 1 1/2 hours since the end of Rush Limbaugh's show.

Plan B

Tuesday, January 18, 2005; Page A16



LAST MAY, WHEN the Food and Drug Administration decided not to allow pharmacies to sell the emergency contraceptive Plan B over the counter, we wrote that the FDA was within its rights to be cautious. The agency had overridden the advice of a panel of its own experts, who pointed out that the drug is considered safe and that if taken quickly (within 72 hours of intercourse) Plan B effectively prevents unwanted pregnancies -- and therefore unwanted abortions -- both of which are good arguments for over-the-counter sales. But FDA officials were bothered by the absence of data describing the drug's impact on girls who would, if Plan B required no prescription, no longer need a doctor's approval to get it. Because recent research has shown that many drugs can affect adolescents differently than adults, this was a legitimate concern.

Other advocates in the Plan B debate had different motivations. Most of the time the drug works by preventing ovulation, and therefore conception, but it may also prevent fertilized eggs from being implanted in the uterus. For that reason the drug has attracted political opponents who call it an "abortion pill," as well as political supporters, such as the Public Interest Media Group, who argue that requiring a prescription for Plan B constitutes an "arcane, medically unjustified barrier to back-up birth control." Opponents of the drug have also said it will increase sexual profligacy, a claim that was soundly rebutted this month by a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association; it showed that the availability of Plan B does not alter women's sexual behavior and does not lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases (though it does not, interestingly, necessarily reduce rates of pregnancy either). Supporters of the drug have picketed the offices of the FDA. Instead of a reasonable debate about adolescent use of the drug, in other words, the argument has deteriorated into a mudslinging match about the politicization of science and the alleged influence of the White House and religious fundamentalists on the FDA.
There is a way out of this political snarl: Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., the company that makes Plan B, has submitted a new application to the FDA, once again asking for permission to make Plan B available without prescription but this time restricting availability to girls younger than 16. The company proposes to sell the drug from behind the pharmacist's counter, so that age restrictions will be more easily enforced. If FDA officials really meant it when they said that their concerns were solely focused on young teenagers, then they should take this new application seriously and proceed to allow sales of the drug, over the counter, to adults.

link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16728-2005Jan17.html?referrer=email

Why younger than 16, why not 18? Imagine you're a parent and your daughter had sex, didn't want to tell you, took the morning after pills and became violently ill. You take her to the emergency room, but can't tell the doctors anything that will help. You are responsible for the child, but have not control over what she does. From the drug company's perspective, this is easy to understand. A large target population for these pills is teenage girls.

Welcome to parenting a teenager.

Free Duck--

Good point.

You can't control when or with whom your nubile daughter will have sex. You can't control the degree to which she will confide in you or whether or not she will take your advice. Like it or not, her ethics and moral values have been established by the time she's 16.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But doesn't it seem a bit silly to make it easier for teenagers without the best judgement to to bypass their parents? Teenagers can't get their ears pierced, get a tatoo, get laser hair removal, have surgery, etc without thier parent's permission, but you want them to have access to have OTC access to drugs that could have serious concequences if they have certain medical conditions they may not know about? I'd much rather have a teenager talking to a doctor than getting advice from their addle-brained, hormonal little friends.

Despite our rather arbitrary distinctions, it's important to note that 16 is the well-accepted age of physical maturity. This issue may be one more concerned with the safety of immature girls than it is with silly legalities.

Cycloptichorn

I'd much rather they have access to the morning-after pill than try to hide a pregnancy from a physically abusive father.

Of course, I'd much rather they had accurate and complete information on using all forms of birth control, as well.

But by all means, lets not tell them how to prevent a pregnancy. Then get in arguments about whether they should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.

Yes, but that average means absolutely nothing when you start talking about an individual child. She may be physically mature at 13 or at 18 - thus the need for the doctor.