Skip to main content

(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Well, this is a real profile in courage from President Obama:
President Obama said on Thursday he “did not get involved” in the decision to prevent young girls from buying the controversial morning-after “Plan B” pill in drug stores. He told reporters at the White House the decision was made by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. But he gave it his full backing despite criticism from women’s health activists.

That would be the decision, announced yesterday, that in a never-before-seen decision to overrule the Food and Drug Administration's recommendation, Kathleen Sebelius decided girls under the age of 17 are too dumb and immature to use the morning after pill without a prescription.

First of all, it seems highly unlikely that Sebelius made this unexpected, unprecedented and rather shocking decision without any input whatsoever from the White House. Especially now, as the country awaits the president's decision about whether to cover contraception without co-pays under the Affordable Care Act—as he'd said would be the policy—or whether to side with the Catholic Bishops by throwing the 99 percent of women who use, or have used birth control, under that all-too-familiar, high-mileage bus. This looks a lot more like a decision to let Sebelius be the scapegoat for a decision that, inevitably, is only further infuriating those whom the president seems so devoted to alienating.

Furthermore, if the president is to be given credit for the laudable decisions made under his administration—like, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's historic speech earlier this week about using foreign aid to advance gay rights—then he also must be held accountable for the poor decisions made under his administration, like the one announced yesterday.

But it isn't just bad optics for the president to endorse this position while also evading responsibility for it. It's also just a really bad decision based on fallacious logic, not science. Like, for example, if a teenager is too young and immature to understand how to take a pill, letting unprotected sex turn into an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy might not be the best idea. Not to mention the concern about the safety of allowing teens to buy this medication without a prescription, when there are plenty of medications more dangerous than Plan B that are sold over the counter to minors, no prescription (or literacy tests) required. Further, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg stated yesterday:

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step. Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

But today, the president, in addition to hanging this poor decision around Sebelius' neck, he also ignored the science—and recommendation of the FDA—to spout nonsense talking points:

I will say this, as the father of two daughters. I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine. And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.

Well, yes, common sense when it comes to contraception would be a nice idea. Memo to the president: Suggesting that possibly pregnant teens should not be able to buy emergency contraception as easily as they can buy bubble gum—while ignoring the far more dangerous medications they can buy over the counter—is not common sense.

The common sense approach to contraception is to make it as accessible and affordable as possible to all girls and women of reproductive age because that is the best way to reduce unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, especially among teens.

That's the common sense approach. Sure would be nice to see the president try it.

Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 10:55 AM PST.

Also republished by Abortion and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Where did he say not to hold him accountable (36+ / 0-)

    for this decision?

    He told reporters at the White House that the decision was made by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. But he gave it his full backing despite criticism from women's health activists

    Sounds like he taking full responsibility which is the exact opposite of what your misleading diary states.

    I get it. You don't like the decision. No need to make shit up to portrait the President as blaming someone else.  That is simply untrue based on the information in your own diary.

  •  What's the matter with Kansas indeed. (34+ / 0-)

    Some days you just scratch your head. Obama gives a bully pulpit speech in Kansas that many progressives applaud, then in the very same breath he approves a former Kansas governor's lame-ass, illogical, unscientific, and just bad policy recommendation. At least boys, who evidently are more intelligent and trustworthy than girls in Sebelius's world, can still buy their condoms.  

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:06:10 AM PST

    •  Teen Pregnancy Has Been Avoided (0+ / 0-)

      before the availability of this drug prescription free you know.  

      I know you all are upset but there is an argument that we shouldn't just be giving young teen girls over the counter access to this morning after drug.  Whether you like it or not, these teens are not adults and they are still require parental guidance.

      And talk about young teen girls are going to have sex totally misses the idea that maybe they shouldn't be at so early an age and may they should be using other forms of contraception to avoid pregnancy if they do choose to do so.  I  think it's high time we teach our youngsters about not only sex but about being responsible with the choice to have it.  

      •  There's an argument, but it's not a strong one. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, atana, Calamity Jean, Skex

        The problem is, Plan B is most effective if taken ASAP after unprotected sex. So requiring a prescription or other roadblocks before making it available greatly decreases the possibility that it will be effective. That's one reason why the people in favor of OTC access have a stronger argument.

        And yes, no one disagrees that teens need guidance and help in making responsible choices. But seeking Plan B IS a responsible choice. It's the least bad alternative in many circumstances. It would be great if all teens would not have sex or plan to go on birth control beforehand. But in the real world, that doesn't always happen. Plan B is a responsible way to mitigate the harm after the fact.

  •  Not to step into the middle of this but (9+ / 0-)

    it certainly does sound like something Sebelius would do, I happen to believe that this was not orchestrated by Obama.

    Yami Yugi: Wait a minute! Did you just summon a bunch of monsters in one turn? Seto Kaiba: Yeah. So? Yami: That's against the rules, isn't it? Kaiba: Screw the rules, I have money! — Episode 1, Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

    by Setsuna Mudo on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:10:13 AM PST

  •  "but he gave it his full backing despite criticism (17+ / 0-)

    from women's activists."

    that's not simply blaming Sebelius, come on now.

    and it occurs to me that certain people only give the president credit for being a leader, and further: give him that credit against evidence, when it's something they don't like.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:15:03 AM PST

  •  Leadership. (9+ / 0-)

    "I couldn't help it! It's not my fault; you can't blame me!  It was her decision!"

    "Look, my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks," - Obama cutting off the bankers re their rationalization of bonuses.

    by dov12348 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:15:22 AM PST

  •  no, he didn't "blame" anyone (21+ / 0-)

    Obama supported the Secretary and her decision and since he agreed with it he didn't need to "blame " anyone.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:20:29 AM PST

  •  At what age (11+ / 0-)

    would you suggest that a girl might be too young to purchase this drug?

    16?

    14?

    12?

    10?

    8?

    This is a serious question. Once a product is placed on the shelves of a drugstore, all it takes is money to buy it and a clerk who doesn't care.

    What would happen if a 12 year-old girl was promiscuous and used this drug 3 times in a week because she had sex three times in one week?

    CDER is not infallible.

    Marcia Angell, M.D. (born 1939) is an American physician, author, and the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). She currently is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts (source:Wikipedia)

    This is an excerpt from a book review she wrote for the New York Review of Books about a 2010 book by Daniel Carpenter Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International, and Comparative Perspectives)

    But there is growing evidence that the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER, pronounced “cedar”), the part of the agency that regulates prescription drugs, has become the servant of the industry it regulates. This has resulted in the sale of drugs of uncertain benefits, some with serious side effects, and in the agency’s failure to respond promptly to evidence that a drug is dangerous. There is no better example than the agency’s decision to allow the diabetes drug Avandia to remain on the market after having determined three years ago that it increases the risk of heart problems and despite the existence of a similar drug that appeared safer. Even after revelations that the drug’s maker, the British company GlaxoSmithKline, suppressed indications of problems and biased its research in Avandia’s favor, the FDA remained reluctant to pull the drug. By the end of August it was still unclear whether the agency would remove Avandia from the market.

    Perhaps she should use a little "common sense" as well??

    Personally, there are a lot of federal agencies that I would put my complete trust in before the FDA.

    OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

    by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:22:47 AM PST

    •  Sex with a 12 year old is rape. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fake consultant, Johnny Q, MrWebster

      I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

      by slinkerwink on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:32:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which doesn't mean the girl (8+ / 0-)

        can't get pregnant and try to take care of it herself. After all she's likely very ashamed.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:38:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  not if it (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marie, Lucy2009, cryonaut, fcvaguy, fizziks

        is with another 12 year old...(unless it was force-able, which is always rape)

      •  except if its another minor (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lucy2009, cryonaut, Dancun74, fizziks
        •  She still needs access to the morning after pill. (6+ / 0-)

          I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

          by slinkerwink on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:42:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd agree (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tb mare, Lucy2009, cryonaut, Dancun74, fizziks

            but, my issue is with your callous claims. This diary is full of them.

            •  True enough...and I'm guilty of said callousness.. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mallyroyal, fcvaguy

              Personhood Advocates, Forced Birthers, and GOP policies, ensure that for many, quality of life begins at conception and ends at birth...

              by Lucy2009 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:00:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You know what's callous? Denying (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              0wn, Johnny Q, Plox

              young women access to their reproductive health. Now that's callous.

              I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

              by slinkerwink on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:03:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So baseless and reckless claims should (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mallyroyal, Southside, fizziks

                always get a pass when you're being righteous? Do I got that right?

              •  You need a prescription (0+ / 0-)

                for birth control pills. Is that "denying young women access to their reproductive health" as well? And if it is, why haven't you been complaining about that this whole time?

                Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

                by tomjones on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:39:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess those who know, see a difference (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slinkerwink, skyounkin

                  In a statement this afternoon FDA underscored that it "had been carefully evaluating for over a decade whether emergency contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, such as Plan B One-Step, are safe and effective for nonprescription use to reduce the chance of pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse."

                  Experts, noted the statement, "including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential."

                  Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                  by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:41:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So? (0+ / 0-)

                    There are versions of the birth control pill considered safe enough for use without a doctor's prescription. Why aren't people on this site up in arms over the pill requiring a prescription?

                    Some people are pushing for it.

                    What’s more, the difficulties involved in obtaining a pill prescription, especially for women without access to a doctor, can cause gaps in contraceptive use. And the birth control methods that are available without prescription — condoms, spermicide and the sponge — have higher failure rates than the pill.

                    But there is something we could do to help the pill live up to its potential: let women purchase it over the counter. A half-century of evidence shows us that it’s safe to dispense the pill without a prescription.

                    Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

                    by tomjones on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:57:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's a good question (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      skyounkin

                      but here's more:

                      Opponents try to question the contraceptive's safety and whether it will somehow encourage sexual activity among teenage girls. But medical experts from across the spectrum -- like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics -- agree that Plan B One-step is safe for over-the-counter use by anyone at risk of an unintended pregnancy. And study after study has shown absolutely no evidence that suggests that making contraception available to teens encourages them to have sex.

                      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                      by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:02:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  if 10 year-olds think they're pregnant... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE

        ...that is the real issue, not whether they can get access to pregnancy protection.

        focus on why that's happening and you'll need less plan b, which should be the real goal.

        "...this election has never been about me. it's about you."--barack obama

        by fake consultant on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:40:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, right. That never happens.... (8+ / 0-)

        I'm sure there are no pedophiles out there, raping their own daughters or step-children or their relative's daughters or their girlfriend's daughters....

        And when those children are too ashamed to go to a loved one or have no loved one to go to and someone tells them that there is this drug that can fix all their problems, what do you think they are going to do? Carefully read all the literature and follow all the directions to the letter?

        Teenage pregnancy is a terrible problem. These types of drugs should be available, but at some point adults have to be involved when children are confronted with grown-up decisions.

        Maybe 16 isn't the perfect age.  Maybe 16 year-olds are capable of making a decision to use a powerful drug on their own. Maybe they aren't. What age would you suggest that children should be allowed to make this decision?

        Maybe drug companies haven't pressured CDER and the FDA to make this drug available ONLY because they want to increase sales. And maybe they have.

        And I really appreciate you replying to the entire content of my message rather than picking out one word to reply to.... see tag below.

        OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

        by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:44:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  there is a compromise possible: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, icemilkcoffee

          why not allow access to the drug for kids of any age, but set an age level where the pharmacist needs to report the sale to the local version of child protective services?

          the (entirely reasonable) response is that it will drive away potential users of the drug; my response to that is that pregnant 10 year-olds are both a public health concern and prima facie evidence of the abuse of a vulnerable person, and that requires the response of government on some level.

          "...this election has never been about me. it's about you."--barack obama

          by fake consultant on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:55:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Very unlikely (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fake consultant, fizziks

          I find it unlikely that a young girl being sexually abused by a family member who is too frightened to tell anyone she might be pregnant would have the information about this drug even existing. Let alone know how to find it in a drugstore.

          And what would be the pharmacist's responsibility? If a 12 year old asks for this drug, is he under any responsibility to report possible abuse?

      •  That's actually part of the argument against it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, paintitblue

        Interestingly, one argument made against making the pill available to girls that young without a prescription is that it will increase the odds that older teens/men who are committing statutory rape can get away with it. The argument is that if the 12-year-old girl has to get a prescription to get the pill, in many states the physician must report the sexual activity to the authorities, thus increasing the risk that the girl will be rescued from the perpetrator.

        If the girl or her abuser can get the drug without anyone seeing a doctor, no one will ever know that she was a victim of statutory rape.

        I'm not arguing for or against this position, but noting how interesting it is that you use this as an argument for making the pill available over the counter to girls this age, whereas others use the same argument for making it unavailable.

        We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

        by CatM on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:14:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That argument is really dumb, I have to say. (0+ / 0-)

          (I realize you aren't advocating for it.)

          Denying Plan B does not do anything to prevent statutory rape. It just makes it more likely that statutory rape is more likely to have worse negative consequences for the victims. I really do not believe that there are a bunch of "would be" statutory rapists out there who hold off solely because of fear of getting their victims pregnant.

          •  I don't either (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnva

            I forget what I was reading where the argument was being made that making it available OTC would make it easier for sexual predators to get away with it since the girls would no longer have contact with the doctors. It seems like a very shallow approach to dealing with the issue of sexual abuse of girls, and certainly a counter argument could be made that giving these girls access to this drug could keep them from being revictimized by having to give birth to an abuser's child.

            We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

            by CatM on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:33:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  People are missing that point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, Anna M

        Any time I have bothered to read about some ridiculously early pregnancy, in all cases it has been a child raped by an adult or somebody older.  Your point goes to something distrubing here in the threads that  11-12 year old girls are being subtly painted as bordering as sexually willing and responsible  and knowing the full  outcomes of sex.  

    •  It's a drug with no contraindicators (17+ / 0-)

      That means no interactions it's been used by literally millions of women for decades with little obvious negative affects. This is not some newly invented drug that was just developed a decade ago it's just a concentrated dose of the very same birth control pill that millions of women take daily.

      Serious Plan B Side Effects: Remarkably no life threatening or really serious Plan B side effects have been reported or are listed on the prescriber’s guidelines by the manufacturer.

      Basically it's safer that pretty damned near every other over the counter medication in existence. Hell vitamins are more dangerous.

      My question is when the Obama administration is going to figure out that pissing on his base is not the best idea coming into an election year with an economy in as bad a shape as this one. Particularly is some sort of misguided effort to lure voters that are convinced that he's some sort of atheist/muslim/socialist/nazi.

      •  No reports... BY THE MANUFACTURER. (4+ / 0-)
        Serious Plan B Side Effects: Remarkably no life threatening or really serious Plan B side effects have been reported or are listed on the prescriber’s guidelines by the manufacturer.

        (my emphasis)

        Believe everything you are told?

        Believe everything you are told by drug manufacturers?

        OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

        by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:48:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I too find that (0+ / 0-)

          really, really hard to believe.

          Hell, ASPIRIN has serious side effects for certain populations. Including young children (which is why they don't market aspirin for children anymore).

          While there may not be many serious side effects IF the drug is taken by the right population in the right dosage - if you make it available like aspirin, I can GUARANTEE you that it will NOT be taken by only the appropriate population OR in the appropriate dosage.

          GUARANTEED. And what happens then?

          •  So should we move (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnva

            Asprin behind the Pharmasists counter now too? Or the vitamins which can be deadly when taking in the wrong dosage by the wrong population?

            Your argument is vapid. This isn't like the good anti-hystamine's that get put back there because they're used to cook meth. This is about ignoring the basic science and treating this product differently for political reasons. If we required a prescription for every product that could be dangerous to the wrong population at the wrong dosage we'd spend our entire lives at the Dr's office.

            Hell water can have serious side affects if taking by any population in the Wrong doses.

            Replace your argument with Flintstone's Vitamins if it doesn't make sense for that it doesn't make sense for anything.

            It's not like Plan B makes people high so girls will be using it for fun like the kids who pick up cases of whipped cream.

        •  Manufacturers are corporatists (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, Escamillo

          except when we agree with them.

        •  Find any by anyone (0+ / 0-)

          Drug manufactures regularly post side affects for drugs. They do it if for no other reason than for liability purposes.

          Haven't  you ever seen the pharma commercials that spend the last 10 seconds of the add spot running through the potential side affects.

          This is a rediculous argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for even offering it.

          •  I make my arguments from my own convictions, (0+ / 0-)

            not someone else's talking points.

            I have nothing to be ashamed of.

            Honest people can honestly disagree.

            I assume that since you are so comfortable telling people to be ashamed of their beliefs that your beliefs must be morally superior...

            Exactly who made that judgment?

            OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

            by hillbrook green on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:43:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I have to disagree with your thinking here (0+ / 0-)

        Plan B may be safe, but sex most definately isn't always safe.  Especially when it is clear that birth control has either failed or not been used at all.   Schools/parents teach abstinence, which leaves many girls/teens unprepared to have responsible sex.  That can lead to all kinds of problems like STDs, pregnancies, and potentially exploitative relationships.  Having to ask for assistance from an older teen, doctor or parent may provide a young girl with potentially life-saving information.  

        Kids are resourceful.  They manage to get cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs.  They will likely manage to get Plan B too.   It just requires that one more person will become aware of the situation.   I doubt that this minor inconvenience will result in many young girls having babies they would otherwise have prevented.  

        Personally, I think 15 years of age would have been more appropriate.  Younger than 15, and already in a potential pregnancy situation indicates to me that there is a need for some counseling/instruction of some kind.  

        As for pissing on the base, I think that is a little over stated.  This may be an overly cautious decision, but keep in mind that this is an overall major improvement in access to women's reproductive health.  Under Bush, Plan B required a prescription for all ages.  Progress comes in small steps sometimes.  Don't lose sight of the fact that it is still progress.  

        •  The issue is that with it (0+ / 0-)

          Requiring a prescription for 16 and under that means that a woman who's older than 16 will have to find an open pharmacy, one hopefully with a phamacist who isn't one of the many who've decided they get to make medical decisions based on their religious convictions and refuse to stock it.

          That's the real issue here.

          As to safety do you have any documentation of a complication with it?

          I mean you can say drug companies lie all you want but most drugs have a list of side affects a mile long this one list no serious side affects that's actually real friggin unusual.  

          •  Good point about the pharmacy stocking issue. (0+ / 0-)

            That is a consideration, although possibly some stores could sell it as they do cigarettes or alcohol, with the cashier being responsible to check the age of the buyer.  As for the safety, you might have been responding to someone else.  I think that it is clear that plan b is safe.  My safety concern was for young girls engaging in sexual activity without appropriate information about studs and birth control.  I think for girls younger than 15, who are buying plan b, some supervision is probably a good idea.  The sad reality is that abstinence only education has created a huge population of young girls without the necessary information on their reproductive health.  

    •  Ah, rational discourse. How refreshing. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fcvaguy, fizziks

      Great comment.

      If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? - Psalms 11:3

      by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:40:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  definitely 12 or 14 is too young (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      createpeace

      Any male over 18 or over who has sex with a girl under 18 is breaking the law.

    •  It's tricky isn't it. Because girls under 18 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, Calamity Jean

      shouldn't be having sex in the first place. Secondly, if they do and get knocked-up they should talk to their mothers about the next step to take and the best way to handle it. That's what I did. Luckily, my mother was a huge advocate of abortion, and women's rights while I was growing-up. So our "discussion" of the fact that I was prego at 15 consisted of her saying "OK", and then making an appt with the local Planned Parenthood for an abortion!!  LOL   Seriously.... it never went beyond that! The whole situation was handled in a couple of days and life went on. But most girls aren't quite that lucky, and that's where the controversy comes in.

      I don't think there is a perfect decision on this issue. Unfortunately, I think we have to err on the side of girls being sensible enough to not use it daily as birth control.

      Personhood Advocates, Forced Birthers, and GOP policies, ensure that for many, quality of life begins at conception and ends at birth...

      by Lucy2009 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:59:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This drug has been available (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, Calamity Jean

      without a prescription for years in Europe with few side effects, and the reported side effects have been from allergy to other compounds in the pill, not the active ingredient progesterone.  Yes, the FDA makes mistakes, but Avandia never had the real-world history of use that Plan B has had.

      Of course Europe is different than the U.S. in that they provide real, serious sex education to their children instead of relying on abstinence only.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:23:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bad policy AND bad politics (21+ / 0-)

    The evegelical nutjobs will NEVER vote for him anyways. Why even bother. As to the catholic 'swing vote'- it's been shown time and again that lay catholics are NOT as dogmatic about contraception as the priests and bishops.

    Just what the hell is he trying to accomplish by this?

    I'm not even totally pro-choice myself and I think this decision is appalling. Plan B is actually a contraceptive, not an 'abortion pill' as has been portrayed.

    •  maybe he is being responsible! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      createpeace
    •  ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FreeWoman19, Lucy2009, PsychoSavannah

      You're assuming that there isn't a large people on the Left who would/do agree with this decision.

      "Math is a theory, so it's not taught in the Bible."

      by lcj98 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:51:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is there anyone on the left agreeing with this? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lucy2009, hester, shaharazade

        So far I haven't heard anyone on the left expressing anything other than outrage here.

        •  I agree with it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks

          read my comment above. I think 12 is too young. And I am a woman who fight for women's rights. But 12 is not even a teenager. Many girls need help dealing with getting their period and seek help from a trusted adult. So don't paint this issue with a broad brush.
          Maybe there are 12 year olds that can handle this, but in my opinion that is the exception rather than the rule.  I have just polled my very liberal women friends and all but one agree with the decision.

          So don't thing the left will walk in lock step with you.

          •  OK, 1. (0+ / 0-)
          •  I don't agree with it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skyounkin

            I just polled my liberal friends and they don't agree with it.

            Wow. That was easy.

            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

            by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:15:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  is 16 too young to have access? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            T100R

            Because under the law 16 means you need a prescription.  I think the 12 year number is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

            You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

            by Johnny Q on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:09:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the FDA decision would allow 12 year olds (0+ / 0-)

              to buy the drug without prescription.  You are calling that "absurd", but it's a case that arises from the FDA decision.

              Maybe Sebelius should've overruled the FDA by setting the age to 15, rather than overruling the FDA by leaving the age at 18 (or 17 or whatever it is).  But then folks would be outraged that 14 year olds couldn't get the drug.  No matter what age is picked, there will be outrage.  The only way to prevent that is to have no age limit at all, which brings 12 year olds into the equation, so it's not "absurd".  Indeed there are folks in the comments in this and/or other diaries on this topic that are vehemently defending the idea that 12 year olds should be able to get the drug.  

              Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, but it's not "absurd" to cite the scenario involving 12 year olds, when that scenario came from the FDA and folks are agreeing with that decision as regards to even 12 year olds.

          •  I agree. 12 is way too young... to be having kids! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnva, Calamity Jean

            I agree with you that a 12 year old is too young to be buying and using this. But what is the alternative? Do you want the 12 yo to have a baby? Do you want the 12 yo to have to go through a much more traumatic actual abortion? Think about the alternatives. Plan B is the least intrusive, least harmful, and least bad of a range of bad scenerios.

        •  You are not looking very hard (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks

          There are dozens of comments on this thread expressing agreement with this decision and intelligently recognizing that there are potentially good arguments for and against it.

          I guess those folks are not the "real" left because they dare to agree with this decision.

        •  I agree with it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks
        •  That's here... (0+ / 0-)

          "Math is a theory, so it's not taught in the Bible."

          by lcj98 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:44:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There's a Reason to Express Total Outrage. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          atana

          Kathleen Sebellius is totally throwing the lives of young girls under the bus. This is birth control---not abortion! The alternative is teen pregnancy, teenage parenthood or abortion. Not having this available will NOT stop teenagers from having sex! The FDA has found this pill to be very safe for girls and women of all childbearing age. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to prohibit access of this pill of any kind, to young women under the age of 17. None!

          This is a moral outrage! Sebelius should either change her mind, be fired or Obama should be thrown out of office for this. I don't care if a Republican will be worse. Obama has totally betrayed his base on this one after we worked hard to elect him.

          If Not Us, Who,..... If Not Now, When?

          by VirginiaBlue on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:10:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  LOL maybe he wants to lose (0+ / 0-)

      That's the only sane explanation for this insanity.

  •  I got married nine dys after I turned 16. I had (11+ / 0-)

    my first daughter one month after I turned seventeen.  Seventeen is long past the time many young women start having sex.  Just saying.

  •  Bottom line is that, (8+ / 0-)

    if you are under 17 and sexually active, make sure you have an older friend available to buy Plan B for you. That's what is screwy to me about this. If teenagers can buy jugs of vodka, I am pretty sure they can buy Plan B.

  •  It's almost as if Obama is (6+ / 0-)

    appeasing the forced-birthers.

    [ducks]

  •  Obama FAIL (13+ / 0-)

    If you weren't involved before, you are now. So either "overrule" Sebelius, or take responsibility by agreeing with the Secretary.

    There are enough disingenuous weasels over at the GOP debate, Mr. President. You don't need to compromise with them on THAT, too.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:36:19 AM PST

  •  hmmm (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, Marie, shaharazade

    didn't I see her get off a plane with Obama a day or so ago? He was not in the loop???

    "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

    by valadon on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:37:37 AM PST

  •  first of all (8+ / 0-)

    what an obvious lie. yeah, he had nothing to do with this. pathetic.

    second, were't we voting for the guy who said science was going to be important again? this decision is made of 100% ignorance.

    this is not honorable behavior.

  •  What does Sebelius, Geitner and Rahm all (4+ / 0-)

    have in common.

    The RW media loves them, never attacking and Obama refuses/d to fire them.

    Sebelius though, I don't see her as evil and right wing as Geitner and for CoS Rahm.

    If she is not evil, she might be the most effective empty suit in DC's history.

    God remember when Howard Dean got passed up for CoS, alot of clamoured and petitioned to have him appointed to HHS.

    And the DNC wonders why the base is obliterated, maybe just maybe it's because we fall flat on our face.

    If Obama can "blame" Sebelius for this, he can surely fire her for incompetence.

  •  I happen to think that Sebelius was correct, but (6+ / 0-)

    I know that a lot of Kossacks believe otherwise.  

    I am sure that the President told her to do this, and told her that he would deny that he told her to do this so that he could show right to lifers that he was not promoting "over the counter abortion and teen promiscuity" and so that he could have some plausible deniability with progressives.

    Chris Christie said this yesterday.  Some Democrats are saying it today:

    "For the last three years, we’ve had a president who doesn’t know how to lead, doesn’t know who he is, and won’t fight for what he believes in."

    If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? - Psalms 11:3

    by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:39:00 AM PST

    •  Excellent. Republican talking points. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Escamillo, paintitblue, LyGypsy

      Could you please publish a few more Republican talking points?

      We enjoy them so much.

      OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

      by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:52:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When Democrats start saying the same thing, they (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Southside, greeseyparrot

        are no longer Republican talking points.  I prefer that my President step up to the plate when he makes a decision.  Don't you?  

        If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? - Psalms 11:3

        by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:12:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know, everything is not a conspiracy. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, Escamillo, indie17, paintitblue

          As far as I'm concerned he did step up to the plate.

          Sebelius announced the decision and said it was her decision. Obama said that Sebelius made the decision and that he (Obama) supported her decision.

          Is it possible that everyone is telling the truth?

          He could have declined to offer his support for her decision.

          He could have simply said it was her decision and left her to dangle in the wind.

          Sebelius could have resigned if she was forced into an announcement that she didn't want to make.

          Sebelius is not the most liberal progressive person on the planet.

          Sometimes people in power appoint people and actually allow them to make decisions.

          And finally, it is not possible that Obama, the father of two adolescent daughters, simply disagrees with the FDA because he has two adolescent daughters?

          Everything is not a conspiracy.

          Sometimes honest people honestly disagree.

          OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

          by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:31:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's entirely possible, and not a (0+ / 0-)

            Republican talking point.

            Forgive me for my lack of trust.   It's been building up, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that my SOL is in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, and things are pretty tense there right now, with Pakistan in the mix even more.  

            I need to take my own frequent advice and try the decaf.

            If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? - Psalms 11:3

            by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:11:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  over there (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SpamNunn, Calamity Jean

              god damn it.

              Neighbors' son just got back from a deployment as a medic with special forces in Afghanistan. Not particularly close, just neighbors, but we were sure nervous about it. Can't imagine how they felt. He got back safe and sound and I hope yours does too.

              Good luck to you and your family.

              I pray to whatever that Obama gets our people out of there any safe way he can. And by safe I mean safe for our sons and daughters who are over there. The sooner, the better.

              OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

              by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:28:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Occam says you're full of baloney. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  oh please (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, createpeace, ronnied

    if somebody on here approves of their 12-year going to CVS or Rite Aid to get this pill need to have their head examine.
    Plus, why can't the girl get her mama to go get it. Is there a law against that?
    yeah yeah yeah ...and what if the mama is bad and the girl can't go to her.
    fine.
    get somebody else.

    •  I have no problem with the decision... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert, Calamity Jean

      ...but Sibelius and Obama have to stop invoking girls way younger that 16 to defend a decision barring 16 year olds from getting it.  That's like saying the drinking age should continue to be 21 because we can't have 14 year olds buying liquor.

      But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

      by Rich in PA on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:44:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm ok with 10-year olds buying liquor. (0+ / 0-)

        I saw one a few weeks ago doing that just: He may have been 9 or 11, but he didn't look like he'd left grade school. Anyway, he was walking out of a corner store with a carton of eggs, a loaf of bread, a candy bar and a two-liter of beer.

        I noticed, of course, but mostly because he seemed over-burdened by carrying the 2-liter of beer in a plastic bag. I think I saw him come out of the same store recently with an over-burdened backpack, but he may have been on his way home from school.

        Groups: Toolbox and Trolls... to preserve the best & the worst of DailyKos.

        by opendna on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:56:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  LOL holy crap you're dumb (0+ / 0-)
    •  What about women (0+ / 0-)

      over 16 who don't live in an area with a 24/7 pharmacy?

      Ever thought about that?

      What about someone who lives in some little podunk town where the only pharmacy is mon-Fri during banking hours?

      THere are lots of things 12 years can du that I wouldn't approve of. But what's more important here is that we're limiting the rights of people who are not 12 years old on grounds that would not be applied to any other product save for this ones connection to sex and prevention of pregnancy.

      If you can't make the argument that some other dangerous OTW product should be available only by showing ID to a pharmacist then you might have a point.

      You can't, no one can.

      If this medication was for impotance and was this safe effective and well documented. This would have already been available over the counter.

      Basically if this drug treated any other condition there would never have been any controversey.

      This tells you right there that this is a decision that has no relationship to any rational scientific argument over safety.

  •  Forced Human Birth (21+ / 0-)

    America's favorite punishment for woman who have sex.

    I guess it beats burying her in a hole and stoning her to death.

    But it runs a close second.


    Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world. Nationalize the bastards.

    by Pluto on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:39:46 AM PST

  •  Obama has beengood on woman's issues and (9+ / 0-)

    I have been a pro-choice activists. I however agree with Sebelius on this issue. Young women under the age of 17 are just not mature enough to make these decisions. In fact I don't think they are mature enough to be having sex. We know they do, but having to get a prescriptoin give OBGYNs a chance to discuss the use on contraceptives use on an on going basis and not just in emergencies.

    •  well then how are they mature enough to have a (0+ / 0-)

      bambino?

      "Say little; do much." (Pirkei Avot: 1:15)

      by hester on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:02:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  how many young girls (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, atana, schnecke21, Calamity Jean, Skex

      do you think are going to go to a OBGYN if they have one in the first place, and get a prescription before they have sex? I had sex at 14 and I certainly did not tell my parents or ask to be taken to a doctor beforehand. Most girls and boys,  become sexually active without adult supervision.  How many live in a household where they would get taken to an OBGYN? How many parents can afford one? How many parents will allow these girls to get this drug? As it is in their minds allowing and consenting to sex?  

      My kids both boys told me they when were active sexually and I talked to them about the responsibility of protection, I did not lecture them on morality, but I did give them a talk about respect for their girl friends vs, rampant hormones.

      My granddaughter told my daughter in law that she was having sex at 15. Her mom took her to the doctor and got her birth control pills. She said I know my daughter and forbidding her to have sex will have the opposite affect and she will no longer be open about what she is doing. It would close down all dialog.  

      In a perfect world where both parents and their daughters can communicate and have access to a good doctor who will help them this might work.  In the real world we live in it seems really judgmental punitive and invasive to require a prescription for this. It will hurt the girls who need it the most. Would you rather your daughter had an abortion or a child?      

           

    •  I Agree With You Totally (0+ / 0-)
    •  Autonomy, no. Forced pregnancy, yes (0+ / 0-)

      If they are that young, THEY ARE BEING RAPED.

      But go ahead and clutch those pearls.  Def better to force them to have babies (as there's little to no access toa bortion for them either).

  •  If you're really worried about 10 and 11 year old (5+ / 0-)

    girls, then draw the line somewhere higher than that. Surely, 14 or 15--high school age--wouldn't be too young.

    Drawing the line at 17 is preposterous. Something like 1/3 of all girls have already had sex by 17. This kind of head-in-the-sand approach to sex is typical of Republicans, but we expect better from a Democratic administration that frequently touts its respect for science.

    This is our time. We can do this. We can change the world.

    by Simian on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:40:41 AM PST

    •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

      17 is too high.  Maybe the age of consent or something would be a better guide.

      But I have to say something about this "science" thing.  Whether or not the drug is safe is not the only consideration for providing easy over the counter access to this type drug.  There is an argument that involves whether teens that young should be having sex in the first place, whether we need to have more sex ed and access to other form of pre-sex contraception, etc.

  •  It is absolutely beyond belief that (13+ / 0-)

    Sebelius, against the recommendation of the FDA, would have taken this explosive decision without the pre-approval of the White House.

    No fucking way in hell.

  •  It was probably sebelius (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, fizziks

    I am sure she got his OK, To be honest I think it was a good decision, A 12 year old shouldn't have access to this.
    I think 16 would be a reasonable age but I have a 15 year old daughter who I think should not get access to this without my wife and I knowing she is sexually active,
    making this over the counter to anyone would be a bad idea.

  •  Just imagine how much WORSE.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    0wn, Calamity Jean

    It would have been if there had been a Republican in office...

    They would have...

    uh...

    Justified this decision by quoting the bible instead of justifying it through passing the buck!

    /snark

    One of these days, I'm gonna learn that I'm only really good at convincing people when I'm being a wiseass. Reviewtopia.net

    by detroitmechworks on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:41:37 AM PST

  •  Face-palm... hooo dawgies... (7+ / 0-)
    But he gave it his full backing despite criticism from women’s health activists.
    In what fucking universe does Obama think he's living?  It's an election year and he's doing shit like this or allowing his HHS Secretary off the reservation without talking to him and his strategists first?  Because that's sure what it looks like.  

    Every nuanced bit of stupidity and jackassery is going to be micro-scrutinized by both sides until the election.  Obama seems to be blowing a pro-life dog whistle he neither needs to blow or really wants to waste energy on...those fucking fanatics despise him anyhow and wouldn't vote for him even if we handed out checks at their polling places on election day.

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:41:51 AM PST

  •  Front page (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fcvaguy, PsychoSavannah, Escamillo

    ...sez Pres. Obama is a liar.

  •  Lame diary (15+ / 0-)

    I'm disagree with the decision too but this diary doesn't help.  It WAS the Secretary's role to make the decision and Obama, when asked, says he agrees with the decision.  Flailing around, saying he 'blames' her for it is weak.  It doesn't bolster the arguments against the decision.  It makes you sound like a bullshitter.  

    "I have known Herman a long time. He's a very attractive, very articulate person." -Newt

    by Sun dog on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:42:03 AM PST

  •  The President is a funny dude... (9+ / 0-)

    ...when it comes to anything controversial.  But that's for another day.  On this issue, it's pretty stupid (yes, even if you're a Cabinet member or the President) to defend a regulation barring under-17s from doing something because you're worried about under-12s doing it.  If that's your concern, the number should have been 12 rather than 17/  You'd think that a President would at least have a sense of how dumb something might sound before he says it.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:42:08 AM PST

  •  Seems to me this is a hollow political move (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, fizziks

    The pill is available OTC to anyone 17 or older.

    If a girl wants it, all she has to do is ask another teen to go to the pharmacy.

    It is as ludicrous as making Tylenol unavailable OTC for minors.

    What, exactly, is the point? That was a rhetorical question, I suppose -- I think I answered it in the subject line, but it certainly seems a bit pathetic to me.

    "If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to reduce the number of our senators dependent on fossil fuel contributions." - Rodney Glassman

    by Darryl House on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:42:21 AM PST

    •  Is Tylenol unavailable OTC to teens? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darryl House

      When I was compiling statistics for the Poison Centers, it was the number one route of drug related suicide. Unlike Valium which I don't think has much of a lethal dose, at least if taken alone. Congress wanted to ban acetaminophen in the mid-80's and had some hearings about it.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:01:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  liver damage, underestimated by people just (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darryl House

        saw sons friend go through this. there actually is a life time limit of total tylenol doses one should never go beyond. but liver damage to the point of transplant from too much tylenol happens more than people know.

      •  arent some OTC drugs (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fumie, johnva

        kept behind the counter? LIke the cold medications that were being used to make meth?

        •  Yep, and Plan B is one of them. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, atana

          In all cases, even if there were no age limit, teen girls would have to speak to a pharmacist to obtain it. So it's not like they would NEVER speak to someone informed about possible dangers/effects. That's what makes this decision even more like paternalistic bullshit: not only are they saying that young girls should not be able to obtain it OTC, but they are saying that they shouldn't be able to obtain it OTC even after talking to a health professional.

          •  Those drugs that are kept (0+ / 0-)

            Behind the counter are kept there because of other reasons. Primarily because they are used in the illicit drug trade and we don't want a meth chef coming in and buying up a box of the good benedril without setting off some alarm bells.

            Plan B is a different issue. If it were to be approved for over the counter sales it would go out on the shelf like any other of the hundres of medications and other products that are actually far more dangerous.

            The problem is exactly the fact that keeping it behind the counter by requiing a prescription for girls under 17 means that all women regardless of age have to go through the process.

            And hope they don't happen to live someplace where the only available pharmacist is one of these moralizing blowhards who's decided that they have the right to make medical decisions for people by not selling the product.

      •  Acetaminophen is, of course, available OTC (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shmuelman

        My comment may have been better stated as "It is as ludicrous as making Tylenol unavailable OTC for minors would be if such legislation were proposed".

        "If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to reduce the number of our senators dependent on fossil fuel contributions." - Rodney Glassman

        by Darryl House on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:54:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  When is the last time you waltzed into (0+ / 0-)

      a drug store and grabbed up a month's supply of The Pill without a prescription?

    •  Doesn't do much for respect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      for the rule of law.  It's illegal for me to do something?  That's OK, I'll just get somebody else to do it for me.  

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:41:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The science and study said it all (7+ / 0-)

    CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step. Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:42:24 AM PST

    •  I really wonder (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CatM, createpeace, Hrubec, msmacgyver

      what younger females they know.

      SOME adolescent females would understand it wasn't for routine use. SOME would understand it didn't protect them from STDs. SOME would be able to use it properly.

      Others would not. Depending on the area/neighborhood, and ages of the girls, possibly a majority would not.

      Teenagers misconceptions about sex, disease and pregnancy could fill a book. Or many books. And probably has.  

      •  yet they did a study, and do the work (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        temptxan, 0wn, wsexson, Skex

        so that has more merit than guessing, wondering and just thinking about anecdotally. That why we have these institutions, so we dont' base decisions on fear and anecdotal evidence

        Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

        by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:53:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Based on the information submitted to them (0+ / 0-)

          yes - but again, who did they check with?

          Go to a good suburban HS, get the girls in the top 20% of the class to review it - no problem, they'll understand it and be able to tell you how to use it. Even the 13 yrs olds would be likely to handle that.

          But go to an inner city HS, and ask even the 17 yr olds to read a drug insert with all the big medical words and tiny print - chances are pretty damn good that NONE of them will really understand it OR any contraindications, or any side effects it lists.

          You really think if this is easily available OTC that only well educated, highly literate adolescent girls are going to buy it?

          I don't.  

          •  again, I'll trust their study and science (6+ / 0-)

            over your anecdotes.

            I think that if a girl has sex too early, they'll be able to take a pill to ensure that they will not get pregnant.

            I believe the FDA checked it out.

            I believe the world is over populated with dwindling resources.

            I don't see the downside to this, and I have a thirteen year old.

            Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

            by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:04:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see a hell of a lot of downsides to this (0+ / 0-)

              You would be happy if your daughter decided that she could now give in to her boyfriend because she could just take a pill if things went too far?

              Oh, and because she's just 13, she doesn't realize what the timeframe is to take it, what will happen if she does take it, or how to even tell if it worked. Her friends told her it's all cool, and it will keep her from getting pregnant and all.

              Because she can just go to the drugstore and get it, she doesn't bother to tell you - it's safe, right? And then winds up either pregnant (because she didn't understand when to take it or how to tell if it worked) or freaking out because she's feeling sick and isn't quite sure why.

              She's a CHILD. Children do really dumb things, that's part of being a child. They think they know way more than they really do, and often they won't ask for help because they think they either did something wrong or they'll look stupid. And they ALWAYS think they're immortal and invincible.

              Been there, done that - from both sides.

              •  you are good at dispensing fearful scenarios (4+ / 0-)

                But in the end, that's all you are doing is sowing fear in the face of science and study. I'm too old to let fear get in the way of reason.

                I'd rather she be able to ensure she not get pregnant in the first place.

                Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:22:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  afterall it's these kind of fearful scenarios (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skyounkin, Calamity Jean

                  that is losing us our freedom and rights.

                  Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                  by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:23:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  evaluating for over a decade (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    skyounkin, atana, Calamity Jean, Skex

                    n a statement this afternoon FDA underscored that it "had been carefully evaluating for over a decade whether emergency contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, such as Plan B One-Step, are safe and effective for nonprescription use to reduce the chance of pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse."

                    Experts, noted the statement, "including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential."

                    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

                    by greenbastard on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:38:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  So what's the alternative? (9+ / 0-)

            Don't let them buy it, let them get pregnant and a) kill themselves, b) kill the child, c) get an abortion (if they can), d) resort to back-alley butchers or do-it-yourself  butchery, e) run crying to an agency for unwed mothers who will take the baby away and place it "properly", f) have a baby they are really too young and (according to YOU) too stupid to take proper care of?

            Really, all the OTHER alternatives are several orders of magnitude WORSE.

            You are also verging on race-baiting with coded words like "inner city" - which everyone knows means "black or brown".

            And if the inner-city schools are failing the children, whose fault is THAT?

            Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

            by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:17:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  CDER and the FDA (0+ / 0-)

      CDER is not infallible.

      Marcia Angell, M.D. (born 1939) is an American physician, author, and the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). She currently is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts (source:Wikipedia)

      This is an excerpt from a book review she wrote for the New York Review of Books about a 2010 book by Daniel Carpenter Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton Studies in American Politics: Historical, International, and Comparative Perspectives)

         But there is growing evidence that the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER, pronounced “cedar”), the part of the agency that regulates prescription drugs, has become the servant of the industry it regulates. This has resulted in the sale of drugs of uncertain benefits, some with serious side effects, and in the agency’s failure to respond promptly to evidence that a drug is dangerous. There is no better example than the agency’s decision to allow the diabetes drug Avandia to remain on the market after having determined three years ago that it increases the risk of heart problems and despite the existence of a similar drug that appeared safer. Even after revelations that the drug’s maker, the British company GlaxoSmithKline, suppressed indications of problems and biased its research in Avandia’s favor, the FDA remained reluctant to pull the drug. By the end of August it was still unclear whether the agency would remove Avandia from the market.

      Maybe CDER has it right and maybe they don't.

      Personally I take anything that CDER says with a whole salt shaker.

      Funny thing, I've never seen so many FDA supporters in one place in my whole life....

      OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

      by hillbrook green on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:00:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The headline to this post is horrible (13+ / 0-)

    It's very easy to be against this decision, without distorting what Obama said.

    •  It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction (0+ / 0-)

      FSM knows, WAY easier than actually stopping to think things through - especially on such an emotionally loaded topic as sex.

      American are too emotionally immature to be trusted to be rational about sex. (And I'm including myself.)

      Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:58:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My .02$ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, hillbrook green, Hrubec

    Nothing stops a parent over 17 from purchasing the drug for their child.  That's what I would do, plus I would see that it is properly administrated.  I can't blame Sebelius for doing what she thinks is in the best interest for a kid under 17.

    •  Really (9+ / 0-)

      That's big of you. What about a child who knows they would be disowned/thrown out of the house if their parent finds out that they are sexually active? And yes there are many parents who are not as enlighten as you. What about a child who has been raped by a parent or relative of a parent? And yes, that happens too.

      •  Big of me?? (0+ / 0-)

        Okay, so we have a kid, say 10-16 yrs that doesn't read the instruction correctly and kill herself.  What next??  Get off your high horse, and think!  That kid that is disowned/thrown out of the house most likely knows someone over 16 that can get the drug for them and safely help them out.  I'm not certain just how legal it is for Sebelious to make the judgement to say it's a come one and all ages drug.

        •  Actually, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean, Skex

          in spite of the voluminous mis-information promoted by "right-to-life" website,  the risks of fatality from Levonorgestrel are quite low (probably lower than that associated with a child that young carrying a pregnancy to term, or pursuing some other form of termination). And it is hard to see how you can misuse a single. It's not like you can take too many. That same child can go buy and drink a bottle of Ny-Quil with much greater risk than that associate with Levonorgestrel.

          And as the diary said:

          The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step. Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

          Now this statement

          I'm not certain just how legal it is for Sebelious to make the judgement to say it's a come one and all ages drug.
          is just nonsense since is explicitly legal for her to follow the guidance of the FDA.

          And finally, my horse is only about 14 hands so he's not really all that high (though he'd like to think he was).

        •  Meh - commonest side effect is throwing up (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, Skex

          There are a very few reports of severe allergic reactions - probably not to the drug, but to some other component of the pill.

          If it even has a lethal dose level (no information on that - you'd probably vomit up your toenails and ALL the drug long before that), it can't be anywhere near as dangerous as Tylenol (which not only has a low daily-use limit that must not be exceeded, it's reported to have a lifetime total dose limit that should not be exceeded).

          So stop with the anti-drug hysteria before you wind up in the same booby hatch as the antivaxers.

          Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:03:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  its not as simple as that. Had a parent give (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skyounkin, Calamity Jean, LyGypsy, Skex

      a doctor I worked with a really hard time in front of an entire waiting room of patients because the doctor would not divulge confidential information about the mans 17 year old son. the father was a hard line religious conservative , had a bible in his hand,. there was real likelihood the father would beat the child. But he expected the doctor to become an informant on the 17 year old, giving him details of the office visit. Had the same thing happen with an irate mom angry with another doctor over her daughters visit for an std.

      Parents DO NOT all have communication with their kids and time after time the demand the nurse or doctor take the place of absent or poor communication in  their dysfunctional relationship to their kids. they are outraged when the doctor or nurse refuse to divulge medical information restricted by law. They never get the message that they need to change the way the communicate to their kids, they never look at themselves and not ever likely to do so. The kid needs access to medical care that is non threatening, Believe me these parents threaten them as much as they threatened the doctor and nurses like me.

      •  30 yr Special Ed teacher here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anna M

        My classes were the Adaptive Behavior Classes/Emotionally Disturbed  I've seen just about every scenario you can throw at me.  The are ALL special cases, you can't just throw a blanket judgement on this issue because YOU had a particular experience.  No, parent don't have all the communication skill they need, they never will. Teachers, counselors, etc. try to step up and cover the bases that the parents refused to commit to. Blaming Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama is beyond absurd.  From a personal note, I held an 11 year old while she bled out waiting for the EMS because of a certain blotch drug that was "suppose" to rid her of the child she was carrying taken incorrectly...  So please, don't preach to me.

        •  there was never any intention (0+ / 0-)

          to preach to you. i happen to agree with you, and should have stated this, that Obama and Sebellius should not be blamed here. And I know ALL about Blanket policy, 504's iep's and and school districts. I was at ground zero in K.C. vs O'Connell, CDE., having experienced first hand blanket policy applied to my child who had more then enough to deal with. I was the involved and active parent supporting my child every step of the way, it was my school district that broke ADA law for DECADES, ignored warnings, ignored parents pleas for them to do what 504 of ADA require. it took a huge effort to deal with them. It took a federal lawsuit to make them see the law. A seasoned lawyer on the case once told me that through all his years dealing with recalcitrant and belligerent adversaries, they were  the worst he had ever come across. Parents were dealing with them on their own and being treated horribly, these parents tried to do their job and many gave up.  I have great appreciation for wonderful special ed teachers, two were friends of mine for years. It was the district and some staff, not all, who were acting in ways that endangered lives like my child.. This included everyone of my districts nurses who stood by and implemented an illegal policy that even their own NPA does not support, and plenty of their cohorts told them they should not be doing. they just ignored the warnings any way and it went on for years and years, some wrote letters as they quit warning them of the dangers, ignored..  And their state leader got a call from me about that, she did nothing about it and just got a promotion.  I am still active in the effort to protect kids from blanket and  unsafe policies.

          There are teens who have had problems with the plan b, one died locally. However, this ruling may cause more harm than good, you cannot make a child tell their parents and you yourself cannot violate FERPA. So what do you do. Make medical care as safe as possible and hope parents talk to their kids.    

          My experience is not intended to blanket everyone. Though you say yourself that teachers are filling in where parents fail. It happens. We agree.

    •  How many 15-year-olds (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skyounkin, atana

      do you think actually talk to their parents about having had sex - especially immediately afterward?  

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:44:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hey, at least he didn't place her (0+ / 0-)

    under indefinite detention!

    i give him points for that.

    The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea. ~ Mark Pauly

    by stolen water on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:44:18 AM PST

  •  exactly - screw all political considerations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skyounkin, atana
    The common sense approach to contraception is to make it as accessible and affordable as possible to all girls and women of reproductive age because that is the best way to reduce unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, especially among teens.

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare."

    by annieli on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:44:24 AM PST

  •  diarist prefers Obama give GOP a huge.. (3+ / 0-)

    talking point while he tries to get tax breaks and unemployment extended!

    diarist total fail.

    My best guess was a reflection that did not look back, an image lost in every mirror.

    by Zacapoet on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:44:41 AM PST

    •  Because of course (10+ / 0-)

      GOP negotiates in good faith and would never make shit up.  Or one can simply do what is right and let everything else tend to itself.

      No nation can be great if it allows its elites to loot with impunity and prosecutes its whistleblowers. Geithner is destroying the things that made America great. -- Bill Black, white-collar criminologist & a former senior financial regulator

      by jboxman on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:49:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, "that socialist Obama" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, skyounkin

      is setting up "sex clinics" at the high schools. ;-)

      (Crazy-eyed Michele Bachmann will tell us all about it at all the 20,000 Republican primary debates.  And a nasally-pronounced "Barack Obama" is in every one of her illogical sentences.)

      -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

      by sunbro on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:33:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Making decisions (0+ / 0-)

      based on what the GOP is going to accuse him of is stupid. They live in a different reality and it doesn't matter what he does they'll still paint him as a atheists muslim socialist out to make their underage children engage in gay sex.

      I mean geeze it was just the other day they were going batshit crazy because one of our Ambassadors pointed out that the Isreali Palestenian conflict was one of the primary causes of Arab anti-semitism. Say what?

      Water is wet news at 11.

      By making stupid decisions like this one to appease people who think that way he's pissing off the people who might actually vote for him (ok will).

      This next election is all going to boil down to getting the base out. Which ever party does a better job of that is going to win.

      The regressive anti-science brigade is already firmly behind the GOP and a couple decisions like this isn't going to win them over.

      What it will do when taking in context with all the other stupid policy decisions this administration has taken in it's misguided quest to win some imaginary middle is demoralize his base. The passionate people who believe in the cause the ones that he'll need to man the phones and canvas the neighborhoods.

      And right now I'm dreading this next election in a way I never thought would even be possible on NOV 3rd 2008. Because I'm going to have a hard time defending his actions much less endorsing him in any way other than pointing out that the alternative is many time worse.

      But I'm tired of having to use that rational for once it would be nice to support a candidate because they do the right fucking things for a change.

  •  Typical Obama and disappointing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skyounkin, atana, LyGypsy

    He's very good at saying nothing when faced with controversy.

  •  Clueless much? (6+ / 0-)
    ...Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.
    I'm guessing that President BHO never heard of an Over-the-Counter drug called Tylenol.

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:45:54 AM PST

    •  Good point! (0+ / 0-)

      If we have one dangerous drug available over-the-counter, we may as well make all dangerous drugs available over-the-counter.

      Actually, I'm not arguing that plan B is dangerous, but the argument that if we have Tylenol available over the counter and therefore there's no reason to deny access to any other drug that is as safe or more safe than Tylenol in this fashion seems silly to me.

      We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

      by CatM on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:07:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Safety is just a stalking-horse (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, johnva, pasadena beggar, wsexson, atana

        for the fact this is about S-E-X.

        Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

        by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:07:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the discussion has to be on the merits (0+ / 0-)

          or demerits of the distribution of Plan B over the counter and nothing else. It doesn't matter what other drugs are available OTC. All that matters is whether the drug in question is safe. It appears to be a relatively low-risk drug, and I did just read that Teva has done pediatric studies, so the question is what the data say. If the data are there to support its use in girls or at the very least do not contraindicate its use, then the decision should be made based on those data.

          We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

          by CatM on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:35:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The data on its safety is there. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            T100R, CatM, Calamity Jean

            But, I don't think the debate should be SOLELY about the safety of making it available OTC. It should also be about whether there is a big advantage associated with making it available that way. If there is data showing that making it OTC increases its use by people who need it, then that's a strong argument in favor of making it OTC. Teen pregnancy is such a negative outcome for public health that even some reasonable level of risk associated with the drug should be considered acceptable if it significantly reduces teen pregnancy.

            •  That is a good point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              johnva, Calamity Jean

              Because teen pregnancy has its own level of risk that I would guess outweighs the risk of using this drug--even inappropriately.

              We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

              by CatM on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:43:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  WAY outweighs the risk! (0+ / 0-)

                It's absolutely no contest. One of the risks of teen pregnancy is death - and the younger the teen, the greater the risk.

                Another is permanent sterility from irreparable damage to reproductive organs. (Historical footnote here: if Margaret Beaufort hadn't been married at 12 and given birth at 13, there would have been no Tudor dynasty - Henry VII was her first, last and only child, despite four marriages.)

                Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

                by TheOtherMaven on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:27:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  it's not a right or left issue .. i'm a parent & (10+ / 0-)

    i do not want my daughter 15 buyer the pill w/o my knowledge.. i took her to the doctor & gave her a perscription for birth control not condoning sex but foe a precaution.. to purchase a pill w/o my knowledge i would be upset. this issue is not about obama it's about being a parent.  there are parents out there have no knowledge what their kids are doing esp as young as 11 & 12 should not buying birth control w/o parents knowlwdge.. there's other issues that parents need to get infront of

    •  Pssst. Not everyone is like you and your family. (7+ / 0-)

      The way you're approaching this issue is emotionally, which is how conservatives approach every single issue. This particular issue goes beyond your home, and you should consider how this decision will impact others and the Pro-Choice movement as a whole.

      "[President Obama] is right. Peace is hard. Unlike winning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is surprisingly easy." -- Stephen Colbert

      by just some lurker guy on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:00:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I understand your concern. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0wn, splintersawry, johnva, Calamity Jean

      But if you can't stop your children from having sex how are you going to stop them from getting this pill? Are you hoping they come to you for a traumatic abortion? Like every other drug, from Oxycontin to America's favorite party drug, Viagra, there will be an underground and much more dangerous market.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:06:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And a voter like you, and millions like you, (0+ / 0-)

      is why this decision was made.  It was a smart decision politically, and teens can still get access to this drug by getting their older teen friends to buy it for them.

      Many independent voters think as you do, and we need them in 2012.

      -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

      by sunbro on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:37:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Politically, this decision (0+ / 0-)

        shifted the Overton Window to the right in regards to limiting choice for women. But hey, that's pragmatism for ya.

        "[President Obama] is right. Peace is hard. Unlike winning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is surprisingly easy." -- Stephen Colbert

        by just some lurker guy on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 04:25:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really, (0+ / 0-)

          was it legal last year for kids and mid-teens to buy "the morning-after pill"?

          Just to review how we got to gays being out fully in the military, IIRC, first, it was illegal, then it was "Don't Ask Dont Tell", then Obama made it fully legal.

          How is this story not the same type of progression in the rights of people, from right-to-left?

          -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

          by sunbro on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 04:33:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's quite the stretch of logic there (0+ / 0-)

            that the road to progress requires 1 self-inflicted step back to make 2 steps forward. And this is only 1 of multiple concessions on women's health that Obama has made since he has been in office.

            Also, instead of worrying about how this will help Obama court the sacred indies, you should worry about the many women who are extremely pissed off about this decision.

            http://www.salon.com/...

            "[President Obama] is right. Peace is hard. Unlike winning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is surprisingly easy." -- Stephen Colbert

            by just some lurker guy on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:08:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not going to quibble about words - this (19+ / 0-)

    is a stupid decision no matter who made it. How likely is it that a teen under 17 who has had unprotected sex is going to be able to get a prescription in the time frame required for it to be effective.

    Though the average reported age for girls to become sexually active  is 17 I've worked with enough young women whose first sexual experience was 14-16 to know that the pill is a necessary option in some cases.

    "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

    by Denise Oliver Velez on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:46:39 AM PST

  •  Uh oh, since when were front pagers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hillbrook green, shmuelman

    allowed to be one of those proverbial "Obama Haters"

    D'oh!!

  •  So don't keep it near the gum or batteries (8+ / 0-)

    Just because it's OTC doesn't mean you have to make it readily accessible. It could be kept behind the pharmacy counter, like many other OTC drugs, where you would have to speak to a pharmacist or tech before you could acquire it. I can't walk into my pharmacy and just get potassium nitrate (saltpeter) off the shelf, even though it doesn't require a prescription. I have to go to the pharmacy counter and explain I'm using it for chacuterie, and sometimes they still won't give it to me (until I promise some home made pastrami).

    Battleground Wisconsin: Fascism has come to America

    by jhecht on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:50:00 AM PST

  •  News for President Obama: (12+ / 0-)

    Pregnancy in a 10- or 11-year-old could end up having a much worse adverse effect than Plan B.
    Duh.

    •  If nothing else (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      it points to a serious Pedo problem.  The fact that children that young are being sexually abused is more troubling than the possibility that the morning after pill may be obtained without ta prescription.

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:33:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  in defense of the President, and Sibelius (0+ / 0-)

    If you put these drugs with batteries and gum, you are making available to everyone, not only women or teens at risk of becoming pregnant, very powerful hormones.
     They can be misused and if taken incorrectly, are dangerous.
    Yes, unplanned pregnancy is dangerous, but women and girls should have the courage to ask a pharmacist for Pklan B. In the case of a 12-yr old girl, god help her, she can get it seruptisiously by asking an older sister, or someone.
    Putting powerful drugs OTC is risky itself.

    I await storm of righteous anger to follow. For misspelling seriptisiously, I mean

    Je regretez tout. How's me French?

    by Mark B on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:51:09 AM PST

    •  TYLENOL can be a killer drug (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      And often has been, yet nobody wants that kept behind the counter.

      Drugs are drugs are drugs are drugs - all have effects, almost all have side-effects, and serious side-effects are generally a statistically significant possibility. So what do you do? Trust people's intelligence (and catch them, if you can, if they should fail), or treat pharmacies like bank vaults, with only authorized employees allowed access?

      Just how crazy ARE you prepared to see this country go?

      Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:26:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with the decision too (6+ / 0-)

    As a teacher and a mom, there is no way 11 and 12 years should ever be allowed to take medication like this without adult guidance.  No way.

     As I stated in yesterday's diary, I am pro choice but this is an issue that should be obvious.  At 11 and 12 you are still taking liquid forms of cold meds with no doseage info on the bottle because they want you (the parent) to get doctor advise first.  To say that a 5th grader could walk into a store and buy  levonorgestrel and ingest it as much as they want... knowing this pill HAS side effects and most people who take it experience a 2 or 3 day uncomfortable hormone ride with vomiting, headaches and stomach pain, is crazy...I'm sorry.  

    •  Same thing apply to 16 year olds? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0wn, Johnny Q
      •  yes for me (0+ / 0-)

        On 9/26/11 at the end of his show Al Sharpton broke it down like it needed to be broken.

        by mim5677 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:22:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What you gonna do? Clap them into chastity belts (5+ / 0-)

          at age 9 and not unlock them till they are married?

          How else are you going to make sure they never have sex and so never need any pills to deal with the possible consequences?

          Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:13:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you hand your 5th grader a bottle of Nyquil and tell them to read the label and figure it out?

            If my 11 year old gets into my medicine cabinet and OD's on aspirin, do you think CPS will not try to get the rest of my kids for neglectfully not keeping medicine locked away?

            Do you think a child as young as 11 or 12 should be allowed to buy monthly birth control with a doctor's exam or prescription?  Why not make that OTC as well for kids?

            I still have razors, mouthwash and lighters put away and my child is 10....much less ingestible medications.  

            •  I was perfectly capable of doing that... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              atana

              when I was in 5th grade, and my parents trusted me to do so. That's because they actually educated me about it from a very young age.

              •  well that's you. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bailey2001

                Not everyone is like you and not every parent is like yours, in fact most aren't and I don't really believe you anyway or at least I don't believe you are giving the whole story.

                On 9/26/11 at the end of his show Al Sharpton broke it down like it needed to be broken.

                by mim5677 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:17:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was allowed to take aspirin, Tylenol, etc... (0+ / 0-)

                  unsupervised at that age. Because I had done it many times before for chronic headaches and knew exactly what I needed to take.

                  I'll admit that that isn't exactly saying to a child: "figure it out yourself". My parents allowed that because they knew I knew what I was doing, by experience. However, that IS more complex than Plan B, which involves just swallowing a single pill. There is nothing to really screw up involving dosage, time intervals, etc, because there is only one pill in the package and you take it and you're done. And a pharmacist explains it all to you when it's dispensed, even though it's OTC and doesn't require a prescription. All the packaging, etc, is specifically designed to be idiot-proof.

                  I think your stance is way overprotective, personally. Given the prevalence of medication in our society, one of the first things kids should be educated about is taking medication properly, reading the instructions completely, etc.

                  •  To specific... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bailey2001

                    Your the exception and are applying your circumstance as if it is the rule.  

                    Have you ever taken plan B?

                    On 9/26/11 at the end of his show Al Sharpton broke it down like it needed to be broken.

                    by mim5677 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 10:28:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, I haven't. (0+ / 0-)

                      But I'm pretty aware of how it works and is packaged. It is just one pill.

                      And I don't believe I'm an exception. I think there are probably lots of parents who let their kids get their own daily medication, for example.

                      •  You are the exception (0+ / 0-)

                        trust me.  You can pretend all you want that everyone's parents are educating their kids but it's not the case.

                        You're acting a little high post right now.

                        On 9/26/11 at the end of his show Al Sharpton broke it down like it needed to be broken.

                        by mim5677 on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 08:57:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  You fell for it ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, T100R, Calamity Jean

      11 and 12 year olds taking the pill really isn't the issue.  It's a red herring.  The vast, vast majority of girls who will be hurt by this are older.  Only a tiny number of 11 and 12 year olds get pregnant.  A HUGE number of 16 and 17 yos. do.  

      So how many thousands of unnecessary teen pregnancies will there be to justify this phony fear of 11 year old girls taking a pill without parental consent?

      I suspect your kids are not in their teens yet.  My soon to be 18 year old daughter has gone on her own for the after morning pill 3 times (due to breaking condoms I was told) since she was 15 and I am grateful it was there for her.  She probably would not have come to me the first time and would have had to just hope for the best.  It was only later that I found out.

  •  Right or wrong, you want him to micromanage? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, tb mare, msmacgyver, Escamillo

    I have no idea what was really going on in Sibelius' mind. But do you really want the President micromanaging every one of his departments every time a controversial issue comes up? I don't.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:52:48 AM PST

  •  Common sense down at the trailer park (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    Not to cast aspersions on folks who live there, but really I am commenting on the absurd, meaningless, and therefore offensive use of the term "common sense." I see it all the time looking at the comments on Yahoo news stories: "If you got ripped off on your mortgage, no one made you sign it!" "If the banks want to charge $5.00 a month, it's their bank,""What do you expect when you talk back to a cop?" "Science is the same as religion - except it is for atheists"and on and on and on.
    Common sense is usually the projection of your axiomatic values on everyone and every situation and is unencumbered by the nuances of reality.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:56:25 AM PST

  •  So when is he going to fire her? If he had (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George Pirpiris

    nothing to do with the decision, why not?  This is a major decision, he should have been consulted.

    Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. Harry Truman

    by temptxan on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 11:57:47 AM PST

  •  Overrule your own FDA for politics? (10+ / 0-)

    Uncool.  

  •  Did you even read her statement (6+ / 0-)

    Seriously
    Last I checked - you have to have a prescription for birth control - right?
    So you think that girls, let's say 13, 14, 15 should have access to product that has not had long term trials within that age group?

    Next thing you'll be doing is to yell and blame the drug company - when in 5 to 10 years the adolecense age group could have reproductive issues because there wasn't enough scienticfic data.

    I AM GLAD SHE MADE THE RULING.  I don't think girls under the age of 17 should have access to this type of drug/medicine/procedure without a prescription or an adult buying it.   Their proposing to be able to walk in and buy this stuff like toothpaste.

  •  I Totally agree with this decision. (4+ / 0-)
  •  Parents have rights and responsibilities (11+ / 0-)

    17 is a minor. Parents are responsible for and they also have rights when it comes to their minor children. As the parent of three teens, I'm wondering how many comments are being made by people actually living this right now. I'm far more interested in quality sex ed, in affordable health care for women, in access to contraception. I'm also a realist. Get real about which battles to pick.

  •  Hopefully in progressive parts of the country (4+ / 0-)

    school nurses will make Plan B available.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:00:46 PM PST

  •  Surprised? This is what he does, this is who he is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lucy2009, atana, LyGypsy

    I.e. a man who'll abandon his "principles", supporters and subordinates at the first sign of danger, or the first hint of political opportunity. Clearly this decision was made for political reasons, to avoid having to face the rediculous charges that would have come from the right about his being (a dangerous black man!) for free and unrestricted teen sex and abortion on demand. So instead of doing the right thing and gearing up to right such charges, he did what he always does, duck and sidestep--and then blame someone else for how powerless he is.

    A profile in courage this was not.

    Can't wait to see how he'll "support" Elizabeth Warren's bid for the senate. Most likely a couple of last-minute drop-ins, so he isn't accused of being a far-left America-hating commie liberal socialist like Warren so clearly is.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:02:03 PM PST

  •  Come on conspiracy theorists. (10+ / 0-)

    Sebellius made this decision about 'girls' under the age of 12 (not 17). The pharmaceuticals behind this drug actually sued to get the FDA to approve it without the necessary evidence to support its use for those under 12 years of age. Anyone who has taken a basic class in Child Development understands why this is an issue. It's amazing that those of you who complain about this industry which chronically forces approval of questionable drugs though the FDA process suddenly go nuts when a reasonable decision like this made by someone like Sebellius. Now it's the evil Obama who 'made her' do it... sheesh...

    •  c'mon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, atana

      how silly...Anytime someone trots out the extreme it is bullshit.. This does effect girls mostly who are 15 and 16.
      Do you really picture an 11 year old doing this?
      Can you picture a 15, 16 year old? Which is more realistic?

      As for a reasonable decision..are you saying that the FDA's decision was not reasonable? But I can see your point..the FDA was acting on science and an in-depth study on younger girls understanding what this was all about...

      Sebellius just made it alright to ignore the FDA..
      Really..this is THE FIRST TIME... but now it has been done?
      Ya really think Republicans will never be in the White House again.. and use this as a precedent?

      •  Um... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Irixsh, Quicklund

        Actually my point is that Sebellius doesn't enjoy the right of "a line item veto" in the sense that she can't just say that we exclude anyone under 12 years old. It doesn't work that way.

        Also the FDA wasn't acting on science. That's the whole point of her decision. No evidence based on anything regarding under twelve girls. It was pushed through without any data.

        It has nothing to with 16 year old young women. And yes I picture an 11 year old doing this since "actual evidence" suggests (though a minority) that they are sexually active and getting pregnant.

        The 'extreme' is to complain about the FDA but then in this case, ignore Pharmaceuticals interests at the expense of science because one likes the hot button political issue, only then to claim the President conspired to make Sebellius infer that "teens are too dumb."

        •  You're SOOOO wrong! (0+ / 0-)

          The FDA WAS INDEED acting on science - the scientific evidence of numerous trials worldwide and two decades' worth of experience with this drug in other countries.

          Just because it "wasn't done here" DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT COUNT.

          What was Secretary Sebelius acting on? An emotional "eww" reaction to the very idea of any minor girl getting involved with sex and requiring the drug?  Knee-jerk terror that the Rabid Right would use the issue to figuratively burn her at the stake? Whatever the basis for her decision was, it sure as hell wasn't science.

          Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

          by TheOtherMaven on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 02:40:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Title of this diary is dishonest. (17+ / 0-)

    We can debate the decision, as is being done here, but that title is Fox style. He didn't blame anybody.

    "So, am I right or what?"

    by itzik shpitzik on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:04:10 PM PST

    •  I agree, this diary is a joke (3+ / 0-)

      "girls under the age of 17 are too dumb and immature to use the morning after pill without a prescription."

      Was this diary written by a girl under 17?? It's stupid on so many levels. What does she think trashing Obama and helping Republicans is going to do for a woman' right to choose?  

      Emoprogs are absolutely KILLING the progressive cause in this country. Take health care reform. It is and will continue to save millions, but people are stuck up on Obama not being "the one" or a savior and doing exactly as what they think he should do. So they make up ridiculous lies and hyperbole much of which is just a parroting of the right wing talking points.

  •  Yes, President Has no Common Sense (4+ / 0-)

    Just because the president deferred to his Health and Human Services Secretary does not mean he lacks common sense. It is grating how every decision some people don't like around here must be turned into a personal attack on the president. I have no problem attacking the decision as a bad one--it's reasonable to make the argument that the evidence doesn't support the decision (though I would like to see the data from the pediatric studies).

    But what is the point of making this a personal attack against the president, deriding him for a lack of courage and common sense? Seriously, is that necessary?

    While the pill does seem relatively safe, there are many adults who cannot follow instructions on how to take over-the-counter medications (one reason there are so many Tylenol poisonings), so I don't think it's unreasonable to question whether girls aged 11 to 12 would be able to do so. Do you honestly think no girl that age who believes she is pregnant would decide to take the pills in case it would help? Do you think a girl who takes the pills without her parents' knowledge and experiences side effects would not be too afraid to tell her parents what she has done so that she can get proper medical attention? I had a friend in high school who had an abortion without telling her parents and developed an infection afterward. She was more afraid of telling her parents that she had an abortion than she would have been to tell them she was pregnant and had she waited any longer to have them take her to the ER, she would have died.

    I think if society's attitudes were different, and all parents talked openly with their children about contraceptives, pregnancy, abortion, etc., that it would be a lot easier for everyone to feel comfortable with making the drug over-the-counter. But that isn't the kind of society we live in--some girls in their pre-teens/early teens don't even have sex education in schools and think they can get pregnant from kissing.

    Again, I've seen nothing to suggest the drug is too unsafe to allow over-the-counter access, but I also don't know enough to know where that data comes from--were pediatric studies conducted? I know they had not been as of 2010. What long-term data are available from retrospective studies in this demographic?

    It seems like there is an easy answer to whether young girls are capable--do a study.

     

    We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

    by CatM on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:05:21 PM PST

  •  I diaried this last night (3+ / 0-)

    here

    with a lot less bruhaha b/c there wasn't anything about the President blaming Sebelius. It was obviously a discussed decision.

    "Say little; do much." (Pirkei Avot: 1:15)

    by hester on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:06:41 PM PST

  •  Democrats against a woman's right to choose (6+ / 0-)

    It's so nice to know who you are.  You want the government -- people in Washington -- to make the reproductive decisions of 12 and 13 year old girls everywhere.  You defend a president who overrules his scientific advisers because he thinks the White House is the nation's parent.  Fine.  Why don't you just change the name of your party officially to Republicans Lite?  :-(

    Agree? Disagree? Feel like throwing a pie at me? Give a buck to wikipedia and let 'er fly! I'm game! :-P

    by Tommy Allen on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:07:59 PM PST

    •  You mean, CHILDREN's right to take drugs, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaurenMonica

      with no parental or doctor supervision, right?  Women's rights aren't at issue here (except for those women who are having their parental rights hung in the balance).  There are legit arguments against this decision.  Don't be like the front-pager and discredit those arguments by bringing in false talking points.

      •  Much of the problem here... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, Escamillo, atana

        is that there is a disconnect between the age at which humans are biologically capable of reproduction and the age at which most people consider them full adults. There's a significant gap there in our society. I would argue that there really isn't a significant difference between women's right to reproductive healthcare and teenage girls' right to reproductive healthcare, because both are sexually mature enough to require it in many circumstances. Emotionally, socially, financially, etc, I agree that teenage pregnancy is a big problem, and that it can be a problematic issue. But if they are old enough to get pregnant, then they are old enough to have a right to reproductive health care regardless of their parents' opinion on the matter. If they do get pregnant, the worst consequences will fall on the teenager, not the parent. So they should have a right to protect themselves and make their own decisions. That's without even getting into the fact that anyone who is mature enough to even know about how to obtain Plan B and what it is is probably mature enough that they should be allowed to make that choice.

      •  Yeah, who cares about raped children! (0+ / 0-)

        Just let her rapist buy the drug for her!  Problem solved!  Then the parents don't have to find out at all!

  •  It's possible President Obama is trying to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, skyounkin

    have his cake and eat it too.

    This decision by his HHS appointee, which he fully supports, may be used to tell the Bishops "you get one" and the "other side gets one."  

    Fairly, squarely, even-steven, dealy-o.

    I f'ing HATE politics that compromises principles and science-based facts.

    :::beep:::beep:::  Look out!...here comes that bus, again!

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:08:38 PM PST

  •  Apoplectic Pollyannas (8+ / 0-)

    You're just angry you didn't get your pony.  

    Obama isn't some sort of King!  It's not like he can wave a magic wand and influence policy making inside the Executive branch!

    Don't you know the Rethuglicans control the House?

    Imagine how much worse it would be if we had a Rethuglican President!

    Your criticisms of Obama only help the GOP.

    You know this is a DEMOCRAT site, right?

    Obama never promised teens access to safe contraception, now did he?

    This is only a start!

    You don't expect Obama to fix 8 years of Bush's mess in a single term, do you?

    Change takes time.  Be patient.

    Go post this crap on Red State.

    Are you a troll?

    I'm giving you a donut cause criticizing Obama's policies is off-topic.

    This issue has already been discussed therefore your criticisms of Obama are spam and I'm gonna HR them.

    /snark

    Congress drags Obama down just like my friends make me drink on weekends.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:12:45 PM PST

  •  So we have to sign in for cold medication (0+ / 0-)

    at the pharmacy but hey, go on over and pick up that plan B box and have all the sex you want cause we know that is your right, no matter what it will do to your head and heart later on and you can live with STD's. Have fun, fun, fun that is all life is for.

    Will we ever get meaning back into our lives.

    "The Church has many that God does not have; God has many the Church does not have" St. Augustine

    by createpeace on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:17:36 PM PST

  •  He didn't know. He wasn't in the loop. (0+ / 0-)

    Plausable (deniability?).
    What else doesn't he know?
    Did Harry Truman keep that buck?
    Shit happens. Even for the good guys.

    We Will NOT Compromise On Fairness.

    by franklyn on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:19:33 PM PST

  •  What "more dangerous drugs" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SlowNomad

    ... are kids able to get OTC? More dangerous than hormones?

    I think the age should be 16 or even 15, but I'm not opposed to their being an age limit. If a little kid needs this drug, other people need to be involved because there are a LOT bigger issues at work than whether or not Obama supports reproductive rights.

    •  TYLENOL! Do some research on THAT! (3+ / 0-)

      In any case, "safety" isn't the real issue. It's "OMG our kids are having SEX and we can't handle that!"

      Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:17:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Safety is the issue for me (0+ / 0-)

        I'm a parent. If a 10-14 year old is having sex, I don't think it's hysterical or puritanical for parents to be concerned about that. If they're self medicating with hormones, I think that's something parents do need to know about.

        •  It is certainly reasonable (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnva

          to be concerned about it*. However, it is completely unreasonable to assume that they will tell you about it. Even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents are typically reluctant to discuss these sorts of things with them.

          *At least when I was that age, sex couldn't kill you: The worse that would happen is that you'd get a butt cheek full of penicillin and have to sit crooked for a couple of days.

        •  Do your kids trust you? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, atana

          Can they come to you and talk about things that are bothering them - any things that are bothering them? Can they count on your loving support and levelheaded advice?

          If so, they're a lot luckier than far too many kids in this country.

          Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:30:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I realize the problem (0+ / 0-)

            But the kids who are having sex too young, and unprotected sex at that, are the least likely to be sophisticated enough to react THE DAY AFTER and go to the pharmacy and ask the pharmacist for this new drug. Do they even know it exists? If they're too afraid to buy birth control, what makes you think they're not too afraid to go into the store THE DAY AFTER they have unprotected sex and buy this from a guy who will probably be extremely judgmental.

            Also, no one has answered this - but if a 12 year old asked a pharmacist for this (assuming it was possible to do so) wouldn't he be required to report possible child abuse?

            12 year old girls having sex is not normal kid stuff. It's usually abuse by an older male.

  •  Is the argument that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SlowNomad, mk3872

    teenagers are not dumb and immature?

    Not all teenagers come with equal intelligence and to treat them as such would be equally dumb and immature.

    On 9/26/11 at the end of his show Al Sharpton broke it down like it needed to be broken.

    by mim5677 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:20:32 PM PST

  •  I thought his quasi-justification of (5+ / 0-)

    "the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect" was especially weak. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of over the counter meds that if pre teens got a hold of them and took too many would be damaging. How is this different?

    "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

    by voroki on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:20:32 PM PST

  •  Ya know (7+ / 0-)

    Some places in a comment I would give a link to where the FDA did study if young girls understood..but knowing that folks here are probably already aware of the study or can find it..no need to link..yes the FDA did a study and yes Virgina, girls aren't stupid!

    This is bullshit pandering to the key "swing States".
    My daughter, 30 and mother of two, called her mom last night and used expletives my wife had never heard her use.

    It is also really important to realize the degree this diminishes the role of the FDA.

  •  What dangerous things can an 11yo buy w/$40? (0+ / 0-)

    2 ceramic knives: http://www.riteaidonlinestore.com/...

    ...and loads of other things from lye to sharp sticks.

    Kids with the $40 to spend would blow it on lots of other things before they'd get around to wasting it on OTC medicines.

    •  So there is no drug that a child shouldn't be able (0+ / 0-)

      to buy without a prescription?  That's not the case even for adults.  (Maybe I'm misreading what your point is.)

      •  I don't think there are serious safety concerns. (0+ / 0-)

        Plan B is safe; in general, it's much safer than many other OTC drugs that kids can already obtain. Plus, it would be behind the pharmacy counter and not dispensed without discussing it with the pharmacist. So there would still be some gatekeepers in place to watch out for kids' safety (and pharmacists are trained for the task, unlike parents).  

        I think that most of the objections seem to center around parents' (legitimate) desire for control over teenage sexuality rather than any sort of serious concerns about safety.

      •  There are too drugs that a child shouldn't be... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnva

        There are too drugs that a child shouldn't be able to buy without a prescription. Adults as well. That wasn't my point.

        My point is that if you want to protect a child from buying dangerous things, there is a very long list of things that they are "able to buy [...] that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect."  I'd imagine coca-cola douches or condoms could have adverse effects if not used properly.

        Since Plan B has such a specific use and relatively high cost for 10 or 11 year old's budgets, I'd think it very unlikely to be used for unintended purposes in improper ways.  

        What people seem to object to is Plan B's proper use in intended ways, whether it is used by adults or by kids.

  •  Plan B will simply become a street drug (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Minus what might be even the mildest educational influence of a pharmacist.

    And, of course, more unwanted and unloved babies, and, since our "government" has done little to prevent the forced closure of clinics all over the country, more amateur abortions...

    If only donkeys could have elephant balls... Occupy!

    by chuckvw on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:50:58 PM PST

  •  This thread is amazing in many ways... (7+ / 0-)

    ...not the least of which is the number of "progressives" who live in an idealized fantasy world about the lives of many young girls.

    "An adult should be involved"..."have a parent involved"..."girls 16, 15, 14, 12, 11...shouldn't be having sex!"

    oh my word...yeah...okay then!  Simply make EC unavailable to ALL sexually active girls UNDER the age of 17 and, voila!, lack of parental/adult involvement and too-early sexual activity will cease!

    Amazing.  Simply amazing.

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:53:09 PM PST

  •  I'm with Sebelius on this one... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mk3872, Irixsh, LaurenMonica, Quicklund

    For a number of reasons...

    1) As a Kansan, I guarantee you she is highly qualified to wade the waters of the contraception/abortion debate.  She's an expert.  And if nothing else, she made a wise POLITICAL decision, because deciding the other way was going to be very controversial.  

    and

    2) I agree with her anyway.  Buying condoms is one thing.  But there's a reason kids are not legal adults - because they are STUPID, and they do stupid things, and they need monitoring taking certain drugs.

    3) Yes, it will just go on the black market.  That's a shame.  

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

    by jgkojak on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 12:59:01 PM PST

  •  obama made it clear that (0+ / 0-)

    progressives will disagree with him in 2008.  

  •  Kaili with more brilliant mind reading! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh, Quicklund
    it seems highly unlikely that Sebelius made this unexpected, unprecedented and rather shocking decision without any input whatsoever from the White House

    And twisting words for your own agenda:

    Teenage girls are too dumb to know better

    Well, to some of us who don't think belittling other points of view is beneficial to debates, not allowing BIG PHARMA to sell harmful drugs over the counter to girls under 17 without a prescription is DANGEROUS, not DUMB.

    •  Then why don't we ban OTC Tylenol? (4+ / 0-)

      Or any number of other dangerous OTC medications that have no age limits set for their purchase. Saying that this is about "safety" is very disingenuous, given that we don't restrict the purchase of other drugs that are much more dangerous than Plan B. This is purely about American's squeamishness about teenagers and sex, as well as likely a dose of religious bullshit.

      Moreover, it would only be available behind the pharmacy counter, so they would still have to speak with a pharmacist in order to obtain it.

      Also...do you know what else is dangerous for a young girl? PREGNANCY.

      •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

        But I don't know about it, I never heard any calls for Tylenol to be made prescription, so spare me the faux-rage.

        •  My rage is not "faux". (6+ / 0-)

          I'm ACTUALLY outraged at the argument from personal ignorance that you're making repeatedly in this thread.

          But just to let you know, there have indeed been many calls to make Tylenol prescription-only at different times, because there is strong data showing that it can be dangerous (and because it's a drug very commonly used in attempted suicides). It's objectively more dangerous than Plan B. So there is a double standard at work here, based on something other than mere concern for "safety".

          •  Outraged? (0+ / 0-)

            Personal ignorance?

            Maybe you just need to take a few Tylenol and take a nap!

            And, no, HHS does not have any requests that they are consdering to make Tylenol available only by prescription!

            Unless you have inside information proving otherwise ...

            See, don't you feel better now?

            •  You didn't read my post. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              atana

              I said that there have been CALLS in the past to make Tylenol prescription only. That doesn't mean just HHS, but includes researchers, public health activists, etc. The fact that you're seemingly unaware of this and the fact that Plan B is NOT particularly "dangerous" in relation to other OTC drugs is what makes your argument ignorant.

          •  If Bush did it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnva, skyounkin

            you would be allowed to be outraged.  If Obama does it, you can't be outraged and if you are, you are a hater.

            Come on, johnva, you have to learn the rules around here!

            /snark

        •  800mg Ibuprophen is prescription (0+ / 0-)

          But you can buy 1000 pills of 200mg at Sams for less than 1c/pill.

      •  The reason is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skyounkin, LaurenMonica

        because we have evidence required by the FDA approval process on how Tylenol effects children under the age of 12. That's why. And that's the whole point of why Sebellius made her decision. It isn't about the 'dosage.' The FDA was sued by the parent pharmaceutical when they balked on it originally and then decided there was enough 'evidence' (none) to let it through. Since there is no restriction on age, even though we have no data for under twelve children, it was vetoed by Sebellius. Sebellius isn't "squeamish about teenagers and sex." It's not always a conspiracy.

  •  The buck stops... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, skyounkin, atana, LyGypsy

    over there!

    Oh and reproductive rights?  A bargaining chip to court conservadems/Repubs.

    Why?  Because we bargained them away during the health care debate and got away with it.

    See what happens when you lay down in the name of the delusional "pragmatism" of Washington?  You become the thing bargained away.

    "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

    by gila on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:38:29 PM PST

    •  Right ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... or it was just a good decision not to get rolled by Big Pharma and let them push MORE pills on teenage girls. Just sayin' ...

      •  oh i get it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana

        this is a decision to protect the 99%.

        Silly me.  This politics thing is confuzeling...

        Gee I wish Obama had this desire to protect the 99% when he was bargaining drug reimportation away, so as to protect big pharma profits at the cost of affordable access to necessary medication for the rest of us.

        "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

        by gila on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 01:56:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Life in the cynical bubble ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... Must be a dark sky with freezing temps every day in your head?

          •  it's reality (0+ / 0-)

            You know, the whole "reality-based community" thing?  I actually believe in that.  I actually apply that to EVERY politician, policy and situation.  Do you?

            You should really try it sometime.

            Open your eyes and you might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

            "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

            by gila on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:43:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, chicks are too dumb for autonomy. (0+ / 0-)

        Esp young ones.  Best to treat them morons and give them no rights.  That will magically solve all teen pregancy problems.

  •  I like the decision... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mk3872

    based on the fact that I don't think most teenagers have a good concept on the sanctity of life, and might do something that they would come to regret in the future.

    I'm probably in the minority here, of course.

    •  What on earth does the "sanctity of life"... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, skyounkin, Plox, atana, schnecke21

      have to do with Plan B? Plan B is contraception, not abortion.

      Plus, I bet a lot more teenagers who get pregnant at 13 come to "regret" that than come to regret using contraception.

      "Sanctity of life" is a completely subjective religious concept in this context. Not a valid basis for public policy. If someone has a religious objection to contraception, NOTHING about making it available forces them to take it. It's not an infringement on their religious liberty in any way, direct or indirect. Saying "they might come to regret it, therefore they should be prohibited from obtaining it even if they want it" is authoritarian, paternalistic nonsense. Do you deny teenagers' right to control their own bodies if their views on the morality of contraception conflict with your own? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

      •  It's simple (0+ / 0-)

        Parents should play a role in these things. Allowing those that are underage to purchase something of this magnitude over the counter is a bit much.

        •  What do you mean by "of this magnitude"? (5+ / 0-)

          I don't believe that it's any different from someone obtaining a bottle of aspirin, in any moral sense. It's contraception, literally. You can disagree, but why must you impose your viewpoint on everyone via the law?

          Parents SHOULD play a role, I agree, but they don't always, because we don't live in a perfect world. Just prohibiting it for no reason other than your disagreement with it will not change that fact, nor will it eliminate things like rape and incest.

          And again, must I point out that the intended use of Plan B is AFTER sexual contact has already taken place? So before seeking Plan B, most teens would have already made the moral choice to have sex. How is making the choice to obtain contraception of greater "magnitude" than the choice to have sex and possibly become pregnant? In fact, if someone that age was seeking Plan B, it's probably because they're trying to be RESPONSIBLE after a possibly bad decision.

    •  you're selling a lot of teenagers short (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnva, skyounkin, atana, Mindmover

      While they generally may not have as nuanced a view as an adult (though even that is less true as time goes on), I think you'll find that most teenagers have very strong views on the sanctity of life in general.

      "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

      by gila on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:00:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What he is actually implying... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, skyounkin, atana

        is that teenagers shouldn't have the right to make decisions that disagree with his own personal religious viewpoint, even if they disagree. He's not just selling them short; he's actually advocating denying them the right to moral agency.

        •  Nopers (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not even a bible-thumper. You don't have to be big on  religion to love life.

          •  I love life too. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana

            And I don't believe there is anything "immoral" or contrary to the sanctity of life about Plan B or any other contraceptive. What makes your viewpoint more valid than mine, to the point that it should be enshrined in law? As I said in another post, you're free to disagree with my view on it, but why should you get to impose that on others?

            If I jumped to a conclusion about your religiosity, I apologize. It's just that phrases like the "sanctity of life" are essentially religious concepts, especially in common use.

            •  I see no reason (0+ / 0-)

              that parents shouldn't know when their child is going to use a pill that switches their system around. Chemically messing with the reproductive system should be something parents are involved in, and if the government says, "too bad, they can get it when they want without your permission," then that's just bad policy.

              I gotta go to work right now, unfortunately. Later.

        •  Oh, please (0+ / 0-)

          That's an enormous leap to come to that conclusion just because you disagree with someone. Goodness ...

          •  How else am I supposed to interpret that post? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skyounkin, atana

            He said that he agrees with denying emergency contraception to young teens without a prescription, and cited a philosophical/quasi-religious concept (the "sanctity of life") and teenagers' alleged inability to make the "right" moral decision as his reasoning. That sounds a lot like denying them moral agency based solely on personal disagreement with their potential moral views to me.

  •  Well, being the Preznit, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana

    he can GET involved.

    Sheesh what a limp dick buckpassing turncoating loser.

  •  I thought that HHS was supposed to ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh, Quicklund, Anna M

    ... decide what is in the country's health's best interest?

    Not just give in to BIG PHARMA and allow more pills to be pushed to teenagers.

    Seems like a reasonable decision to me.

    And I find Kaili's consistently condescending tone toward Obama to be quite ugly.

    •  yeah, c'mon guys, he was protecting the 99% (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana

      Let's just not remember the way when he was killed drug reimportation so as to protect big pharma profits, even when it means less access to necessary medication for the rest of us.

      oops...

      "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

      by gila on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:03:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Make up your mind (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        Are you for Big Pharma or not? Can't tell ... probably it just depends on which outrage du jour you wish to seize upon, I guess ...

        •  I would think "not" (0+ / 0-)

          considering I disagreed with President Obama when he killed drug reimportation, which benefits big-pharma profits at the expense of the rest of us.

          What about you?  Do you agree with him on killing drug reimportation to protect big pharma profits?

          "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." Sun Tzu

          by gila on Sat Dec 10, 2011 at 10:37:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't see the headline in the quote. What I do (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh, LaurenMonica, Escamillo, Quicklund

    see is confirmation bias.  By the way,  Planned Parenthood, I understand does not have a problem with this decision.

  •  Yeah! Something to feed the Angry Left! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh

    Things had been too quiet lately from the "I'll never vote for that traitor Obama" crowd ...

  •  Obama Made The Right Call (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh, LaurenMonica, Quicklund

    Now I will probably get roasted on this but politically Obama could not agree with supplying teen girls with over the counter non prescription "morning after" pills.  He just could not...it would be political poison.

    All those bellaching over this better get a political clue.  

    •  I personally... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, Escamillo, schnecke21

      don't believe that public health policy should be driven by politics, especially not in this highly politicized field of sexual health. I prefer listening to scientists and doctors, not religious kooks and in-denial parents.

      •  I Understand Your Point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Escamillo

        but I don't neccessarily agree that we should leave this discussion to pure science.  

        Sorry but I do believe there are moral issues and issues of parental guidance in dealing with underage sexaulity.  I am not a head in the sand type but I do think we should be educating our kids more about being responsible with their sexual choices...whether they chose to delay or move forward.  There is nothing wrong with telling a youngster it is better to wait or if they choose to have sex to be safe and use pre-sex contraception.

        •  I don't disagree that education/morality... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, Escamillo

          about underage sexuality are something that parents should ideally be involved in. But I also don't think that that goal is necessarily in conflict with allowing Plan B OTC. I would advocate for a "layered defense" against teen pregnancy: ready availability of things like Plan B and condoms, encouragement of more parental involvement, better/more realistic sex education in schools, etc. We can and should do these things simultaneously; they are not mutually exclusive, but rather are complementary approaches. I don't see much evidence that making Plan B available OTC undermines teenage responsibility or parental involvement any more than it already was missing, but I do see evidence that it could help reduce teen pregnancy.

  •  Done with Obama (6+ / 0-)

    Teens are having sex. Get over it. The smart ones will look for contraception. Help them.

    •  What About Giving Them Access (0+ / 0-)

      to pre-sex contraception.   I think Obama is all for sex education, contraception like condoms and the like.

      But we are talking about a drug. And this particular drug is one that really voids what I would say is personal responsibility.  If these youngsters think they are ready for sex well then they should be responsible enough to take precautions before hand to avoid pregnancy and hopefully getting STD's.

      Now many might vehemently disagree with me on this but think we need to demand more from our youngsters.  We should give them the education to make their choices on sex but they should also expect that whatever that choice...it has consequences.  Don't expect easy access to a "bail out" or expect that everyone has to approve of the choice they make.

      •  I believe that that is an inaccurate... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, Calamity Jean

        description of Plan B. It is not a way to avoid taking responsibility, or a "bail out". It's a way of taking responsibility after the fact, and an acknowledgement that people are human and make mistakes. From what I hear, it also is sometimes unpleasant to take and can be expensive, so it's not something that most teenagers would use routinely anyway.

  •  Oh for God Fucking Sake.... (7+ / 0-)

    ....both pregnancy and abortion are more dangerous than the fucking pill (npi). What a bunch of jackasses.

    No one ever created a vibrant economy by building houses for each other. Houses are built because there is a vibrant economy.

    by Doug in SF on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:33:16 PM PST

    •  yes they are/please call (6+ / 0-)

      the White House comment line (202)-456-1111 if you want to let the administration know how you feel.

      I tried Sebellius' number this am and couldn't get through but I did get through to the White House eventually.  Also signed Naral's petition.

      Here's the reality--some 14 year old who is molested, raped or just made a dumb mistake (of course teenagers never do that) cannot have access to this.  Thinking they can get a prescrption -- really -- it just took me almost a week to get a renewal of a medication I regularly take.  I can see keeping it behind the counter and requiring the pharmacist to explain any risks, but OF COURSE, an unwanted pregnancy or an abortion are far greater risks.

      Call....

  •  Glad Obama is going to make teenage girls (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnva, MrWebster, atana, LyGypsy

    pay for his political cowardice. What a joke. At least he is consistently weak. No flip flopper.

  •  Jesus... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnva, atana, schnecke21, Calamity Jean
    if not used properly,

    Is he serious with this crap?  It's a pill...not some rubiks cube you have to figure out how to solve or else you'll get pregnant...

    It's a PILL.

    You put it in your mouth and swallow it.....preferrably with some liquid to help wash it down.

    This decision from Sebilius and his backing is total bullshit.  He is such a coward on this.

    "I'm not scared of anyone or anything, Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?" Jack Hawksmoor

    by skyounkin on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:46:59 PM PST

    •  That's BS, it's a pill with many caveats (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indie17

      and is relatively undertested in younger trials. Sure, are there other drugs out there over the counter that are just as dangerous if not used properly, but instead of adding more, maybe we should start looking into getting those off the shelves for kids as well.

      There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

      by Irixsh on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:55:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes! "Pills" have never been misused before. (0+ / 0-)

      It's a pill! That means it's SAFE!

      No one in history (not now Marilyn I'm typing) in history has ever misused or abused pills before. I mean, if the pharmacy industry puts something in pill form, that's all anyone needs to know! (Marilyn?  I'm done. Wake up. Marilyn?...)

    •  Sudafed is a pill too. (0+ / 0-)

      Would you hand your 10 year old a box of them and tell them "make sure whenever you want one or two or three, you use water"?

      Jeez!   No way that half of the commenters on this thread have children, or have even been around children....ever!

      •  They have single dose pills now. (0+ / 0-)

        Basically, there is nothing to really screw up. All you have to do is swallow a single pill. And, again, it isn't provided without medical advice: a pharmacist has to give counseling.

  •  I think the decision is wise (0+ / 0-)

    And there is absolutely no rule telling a child they can't have an adult buy it for them. At some point, maybe we need to get  back to time when kids went to adults regarding things such as this. In no way do I think a child should be out buying stuff such as this without having talked to an adult, nor do I think they are ready. Call me a "turncoat dem".

    There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

    by Irixsh on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:49:17 PM PST

    •  They would talk to an adult pharmacist. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      And receive counseling about proper use, side effects, etc, at that time. How is that not good enough? The pharmacist probably knows much more about it than their parents do, anyway.

      In any case, wishing that kids would go to their parents doesn't mean that they will. And it doesn't change the fact that some teenagers are in horrible circumstances. Some teens are even raped by their parents, as awful as that is. Wishing the world were perfect and these things didn't exist doesn't make it so.

    •  Adults in life of a 12 year old girl? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, atana, Calamity Jean

      Let's see, it is likely the girl was raped by an adult in the family or an "uncle".  Just read a few stories about girls that age who got pregnant--many of them were afraid to tell some adult.  

      As I read stories I searched about these girls, you know, I have to aske the question:  what adults?

      •  What's worries me more about that situation (0+ / 0-)

        is that all letting this poor girl do in that situation is hide a serious problem that will have far less chance of ever coming to light in that case. At least if she has to go to a doctor, or go to a planned parenthood behind her parents back, the situation has a far better chance of coming to light quicker.

        There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

        by Irixsh on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 08:51:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She would have to go to a pharmacist. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R

          I would imagine most pharmacists would definitely question the circumstances under which a 12 year old showed up seeking Plan B. They aren't just mindless pill dispensers, but health professionals who are trained to assess the appropriateness of medications.

          •  Could they question her or even take her name? (0+ / 0-)

             Ask her to stick around while they call someone?  

            Of course not! Pharmacists do not have any legal authority to do anything like that. So what good would it do, if the only thing they can do is ask the child if she would like help taking the pill or can I put this in a bag for you and that will be $39.99?  Half of 12 years old don't even look 12 anymore, they look grown.  At least a doctor would know it was a child and know their age and possibly even become aware that the child is injured or is displaying signs of abuse.  Doctors know who to call, know what to look for, and are legally obligated to help in abuse cases.   Pharmacists are not trained in child abuse as doctors, educators and social workers are.  I would lose my job and license to teach, if as an educator I knew any child that young was pregnant, of thought she was pregnant and I didn’t report it.  Why? If a 10 to 13 year old child is pregnant, or thinks she is pregnant... there is something wrong...in every case, all the time....there is no exception to this rule.  She is not old enough to consent to anyone.

  •  Seems like sound policy to me. N/t (0+ / 0-)

    They only call it a class war when we fight back

    by al23 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:52:01 PM PST

  •  Our "Team of Rivals" (4+ / 0-)

    One could see it coming as soon as the victorious Presidential candidate who had run on a relatively radical platform announced that he would build a cabinet opposed to his supposed policies.  So he was going "change the culture" in the entrenched bureaucracy by building a cabinet that opposed changing the culture.  Brilliant.

    Worst Democratic President since Jimmy Carter.  His saving grace is that he followed George W Bush, and he is opposed by a Volkswagen Beetle full of Clowns.  The Obama Doctrine seems to be, "How severely can we alienate our base and still win an election."  

    If he thinks he is "uniting a divided nation" he's fooling himself.  All he's doing is fomenting more anger, and disenfranchising the very people who voted for "change".  

    OMG, Why am I starting in on this?  Hopefully no one will read it, and I can go back to get cynical enough to match reality.

    "We know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries." -- Paul Krugman

    by Deighved H Stern MD on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 03:02:35 PM PST

    •  Well, I read it and I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      Plan B follows a line of decisions/policies that include:
      continuing war
      failure to protect whistleblowers
      the Keystone XL pipeline (which is on hold until the election is over and will then be back on the front burner)

      Those things may not be important to you,but they are to me. I busted my butt for Obama in 2008. I will vote for him in 2012. But he ain't getting a dime from me.

      Let the flaming begin.

      It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

      by AtlantaJan on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 04:51:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  careful how far down that rabbit hole you go....nt (0+ / 0-)

      The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

      by Mindmover on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 10:33:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  President Obama : The Cowardly Pussy Cat (0+ / 0-)

    Presidnet Obama may think people don't notice, but his habit of ducking responsibility for his own administration is getting old fast.

    He disclaimed any responsibility for ensuring protection in America for free speech and the right to dissent.  Not his problem, he said,  when OWS protesters were shut down violently, it's a local issue.

    He has failed to stop his DOJ from its campaign to shut down all of the medical marijuana dispensaries in California including those 100% legal under state law despite promising he would not do that.  (My guess on why the flip-flop:  The huge drug companies did not want the competition and  told Obama to shut them down and his DOJ complied. The legalized durg pushers (big pharma) give almost as much political cash as wall street.)

    He can't answer why his DOJ has failed to prosecute the blatant  and hugely destructive fraud by our banks and wall streeters.  Is it because the Wall Street firms gave him more money for his campaign ... in the millions ... than anyone else?

    His treasury secretary Timothy Geitner was hand-picked by Wall Street to be the chair of NY fed. Obama put him in charge of the nation's economic policy.  It's no surprise, then, that Obama's econiomic policies the last 3 years have been skewed toward bailing out the rich and letting the middle class eat the cost, with no effort to ease the great pain around the country (20% of households had zero income last year).

    Obama has delivered for the top 10%, but not the bottom 90%.  He even extended the tax cuts for the super wealthy after promising to do the exact opposite.

    Sure, President Obama gives great speeches.  He was able to inspire millions.  But when we look at his actions, he looks like a manipulator and protector of the status-quo.  He says one thing, but very often does the exact opposite.  His rhetoric soars, but his administration's actions are hostile to the people and to democratic principles.

  •  Lame spin by the front-pager, which actually (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh

    undercuts legit arguments against this decision, for how petty and disingenuous the front-pager's arguments are.

    But that's to be expected.  AFter all, this its the same front pager who, at net roots nation, when interviewing a Democratic official, tried to shame the official into never mentioning Lilly Ledbetter agains, because she disapproved of Dems listing it as an accomplishment.  She followed that up with a front-page piece on how "awful" Lilly Ledbetter is, and that Dems should be trashed, not praised, for passing it at all.  All because she didn't want the Dems to receive or claim credit for that as an accomplishment.

    The previous diaries by this front-pager on this issue had some merit. This one, with it's false title and lame spin, does not.  And is a new low for her, sadly.

    •  Even if true... (3+ / 0-)

      President Obama only has himself to blame for the fact that too many democrats wish they could take a morning after the election pill now that we see what his Hope and Change rhetoric really meant:  

      Extended tax cuts for the wealthy, pepper spray and tear gas for the rest of us.

    •  do women have pay parity now? (0+ / 0-)

      are they being paid equal to men for the same job?

      The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea. ~ Mark Pauly

      by stolen water on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 04:12:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Utter bullshit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LyGypsy

      She was making the valid point that the White House begins and ends the discussion over women's rights with a law that only defined when a lawsuit can happen.  

      What is amazing about the posters here is that they give Obama all the credit for a law which he as a Senator and "community organizer" was NEVER involved with.  This administration makes a fucked up decision now that will hurt lives, and we get bullshit about levels of responsbility, blah blah, I disagree with the president but he doesn't have to own the decison, blah, excuse, excuse...don't blame him, blah blah..

      •  Yeah, 2 Supreme Court opening, 2 women (0+ / 0-)

        The administrations women's rights credentials are fricken awful.

        There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

        by Irixsh on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 09:11:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If that is the measure, then join the gop. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LyGypsy

          They ran a woman as VP.  Bush appointed a woman as his secretary of state.  

          And Obama appoints a woman who just took away a critical reproductive right.  And under the same woman, the administration denied abortion coverage in the high risk pools of the health care act even though the law in no way mandated it.  

          Oh by the way, you do know that Kagan urged Clinton which he did, to deny federal funds for abortions.  

  •  I did something disgusting. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, Mindmover, Calamity Jean, johnva

    Yesterday when I read the first diary and the issue over pre-teens getting pregnant, I did a few searches on teen pregnancy rates.  On the surface very hard to get any figures as most surveys  only list pre-teens in a typical "below 15" age category. Sebelius' reason seemed to me to be weak and rather bullshit given.

    And now, after reading the comments about these young girls as a type and the policy, particularily from some supporters of Obama, I searched again and just found stories about pregnant 11 and 12 year olds.  Hard to read.

    I am disgusted and really don't want to articulate the imagery that has built around these young girls in the threads and the reality of the stories I read.  

    First Kaili, you are right about the issue and the politics of the issue, and right about what you did at the netroots conference (obviously some people did like it when you refused to suck up to some Obama functionary and are holding some long dislike).

    I need to leave and calm down a bit, but you are doing righteous work.  Please continue.  Your work counts.

  •  I'm With The Administration Here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh

    I'm sure that makes me "not progressive enough" but so be it.

    It can't be that hard to find an over-18 person to buy it...no harder than buying beer.

    •  This is, without a doubt (4+ / 0-)

      the silliest argument I've seen (and the fact that it has been repeated multiple time in this thread does not make it any less silly).

      The argument is that since a raped 13-year old can maybe find an older person to buy it for them in the rather narrow time window within which it is effective, that it is ok to officially restrict that 13-year olds access.

      Of course what this really means, assuming the above is true, is that the person who is going to be taking the pill is not the person who consults with the pharmacist.

    •  Nah, just a misogynist. (0+ / 0-)

      Typical, really.  Removing autonomy from females is okay, cuz they're dumb and big daddy knows better.  

      And of course, all underaged pregnant girls can get someone to buy it for them - guaranteeing that they don't talk to a pharmacist. Fuck the ones who can't get someone else to buy it.  Slut shoulda kept her legs closed!

      Just clutch those pearls really hard and magically the obvious stupidity of this becomes reasonable.

  •  what a great diary, I broke out the popcorn (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund

    on this one....

    popcorn

    The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by Mindmover on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 10:24:50 PM PST

  •  I completely agree with the President (0+ / 0-)

    I am a father with two daughters. I think that allowing young girls to buy this contraceptive without input from their parents or a doctor is insane. In my opinion, the people who support this are insane.

    Here is the bottom line... if we allow this to be legal then we should repeal statutory rape laws because the effect will be the same... it will encourage sexual activity.

    Secondly, there is a REASON why there are so many teen pregnancies... it is because 90% of parents don't educate their daughters about the impact that early pregnancy can have on their life.

    My oldest daughter is 20 years old. I know for a fact that she has been sexually active since about 13 or so because she admitted to me when she was 18.

    When she began to have her cycle, we sat down and explained all of this to her. We discussed everything openly and answered all of her questions. She never felt that she couldn't talk to us about it. We also never forbade her anything.

    We explained to her that sexual desire was natural and that sex came with responsibility... especially for young women who typically end up with the blunt end of that responsibility in the case of pregnancy. We explained how pregnancy could impact her life and showed her real life examples of girls that we knew that had experienced it... including my wife who got pregnant at age 17 by her first husband. We empowered her to make prudent decisions to protect herself.

    Is our method foolproof? No... but I certainly think that it is the single most important way that parents can empower their daughters. I know for a fact that there would be a lot of teen boys who will use the morning after pill as leverage to use and abuse their young girlfriends.

    That leads to the conversations I had with my step son. It certainly wasn't hard for me to introduce him to quite a number of my friends who had been to jail multiple times for missing child support payments.

  •  Disliked Decision = Barak "The Impailer" Obama (0+ / 0-)

    I understand that this decision is open to serious criticism, but this sort of over-the-top invective doesn't pass muster. If you want to persuade people, hyperbole like this is your foe. If you just want to rile up the anti-Obama demographic, then Mission Accomplished.

  •  Plan B (0+ / 0-)

    To refer to females betweens the age of 12-16 (or what is considered child bearing years) as "women" is absurd!. This is one time a child needs the support of their family.   In California you can't even receive dental treatment, even a dental cleaning, under the age of 18 without the consent of the responsibile parent.  But some want to allow life-impacting decisions to minors 16 yrs and younger without consent of their parents.

    Medications should not be distributed to minors without the parent's consent.  If these minors have medical complications such bleeding or hemorrhaging who will be responsible for their medical care?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site