The following editorial appeared in the San Jose Mercury News:
During the George W. Bush administration, it was commonplace for politics to trump science, particularly in the areas of health and the environment. We didn’t expect this kind of nonsense from the administration of Barack Obama. But in a major surprise Wednesday, Obama’s health secretary rejected the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to allow the Plan B morning-after pill to be sold on drugstore shelves.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the expertise of the scientific team put together expressly to study the issue and the safety of this medication. In a proclamation worthy of the Bush team, Sebelius used her authority to implement her personal view that underage girls should not be able to buy Plan B on their own.
If only she could wave her magic wand and prevent those same underage girls from having sex and getting pregnant.
Despite significant progress in reducing the teen pregnancy rate, about 50,000 girls in California have unwanted pregnancies every year.
The FDA conducted extensive research and found that Plan B is safe and effective. It is already sold over the counter in more than 40 nations. Case closed. But not for Sebelius — nor, we can only assume, for Obama.
Plan B has not been found to promote promiscuity by women of any age. Nor has it been demonstrated to lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Yet this ruling, in effect, denies access to the pill for girls who may need it the most — victims of abuse by a member of the family, as one example. They would have to get a prescription for Plan B, and in many parts of the country — including rural California — it’s difficult to obtain one within 72 hours of unprotected sex, when the emergency contraception is most effective.
Sebelius knows this. But she is now on record as opposing Plan B being sold over the counter at drugstores unless a girl can prove she is older than 17. This is bad enough on its own. But it also heightens fears that it might be a precursor of things to come in an election year.
Obama is being heavily pressured by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to back away from his decision to require health insurance companies to cover contraception as preventive care, in effect making it available to women without co-payments. This is considered to be one of the most important health benefits for women — particularly low-income women — and is supported by more than 75 percent of Americans. Even before Wednesday, health advocates were worried that Obama would cave on it.
The Catholic Church can’t even convince its own members to adhere to its prohibition on birth control: 98 percent of Catholic women in the United States use some form of contraception. The public interest clearly lies in making safe birth control readily available to women of all income levels. Women who have unwanted pregnancies have increased health risks, primarily because they are less likely to get prenatal care. This substantially increases public health costs.
Sebelius’ decision on Plan B will cause real harm. Now Americans who had trusted Obama’s commitment to science and to women’s reproductive rights can only hope it’s not a harbinger of more harm to come.
Comments (57)
Add commentThere is a difference...
...between prevention and termination. Plan B is the latter. Using the term "contraceptive" in reference to the morning after pill is incorrect. Using that misnomer here is dishonest and deceptive. Plan B is not a contraceptive measure, rather, an abortive measure.
skirkz - -
Several forms of birth control, including the minipill, a daily contraceptive, also work by not allowing a fertilized egg to implant in the uterus. An IUD works this way as well.
The fact remains that in a country that, according to many religious leaders, was "founded on freedom of religion" - it is the worst form of hypocricy to attempt to curtail my personal freedoms based on their religious beliefs. If someone is deeply religious, then don't use contraception, and don't buy the morning after pill. Simple. Dishonest is the church pretending to believe in freedom of religion, which it clearly does not.
Funny that the Catholic Church condemns birth control, saying it "goes against nature" but has no such qualms about artificial insemination, or Viagra. Is it not natural for some people to NOT be able to have children, or for some older men to lose some sexual prowess?
abstinence vs. condoms
Vows of abstinence break easier than condoms.
If a teenage girl can buy aspirin, cold meds or wart remover over the counter, she should be able to buy birth control such as this. The world has enough unwanted babies.
This is nothing more than politics in a re-election year.
And the Catholic Bishops need to shut the hell up and stay out of the debate. They should focus on cleaning out their own closets first.
See how the Catholic church in Alaska has systematically ruined numerous lives in the remote village of Saint Michael and elsewhere:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-silence/timeline/
skirkz...
Plan B does not cause an abortion. It prevents fertilization of an egg or a zygote from implanting. It has no effect on a blastocyst or an embryo.
It is odd that you will trust a girl with a pregnancy and raising a child, but will not trust her to read simple directions and take a single pill. But really, this is all about “[filtered word] shaming” for you isn’t it?
Contraception...
...by definition, is prevention of fertilization. My opinion Is absent in my post. I am not a Catholic. My point is the misuse of a word to promote an agenda. It is, after all, called the morning AFTER pill. AFTER the deed was done. AFTER thought. AFTER fertilization. So how long AFTER copulation does fertilization take place? Have your opinions. Don't lie to justify them. That would make you a slow swimmer.
skirkz
Maybe you should actually get a few facts on this issue before spouting off? You obviously lack any knowledge on how human reproduction works and how Plan B fits into that process. Contraception is not "by definition prevention of fertilization." Contraceptives can work after fertilization has occured (re: IUD). Fertilization can occur up to 72 hours after intercourse, that is the entire point of Plan B. When your normal birth control fails (most likely a broken condom), take Plan B.
Birth control is not an issue for anyone besides the woman. It is her body, her choice. It is not a choice for you or anyone else to make for her.
This issue is a BS issue. Plan B is safe and effective. This ruling has no real world impact except to keep Plan B behind a counter. This is so the moralists can force women to ask permission to control their own reproductive decisions.
Pardon...
... my understanding of the English dictionary. As I mentioned, my opinion is absent from the above posts. The fact is, I have yet to form an opinion on Plan B. My opinion on contraceptives is, by all means, prevent unwanted pregnancy. I am very opinionated about the taking of an innocent life. In the formation of my opinion about that interim gray area of when that life begins, I prefer not to have facts clouded by the opinions of others, especially when they misrepresent the facts (as this article does). I am also put off by rabid rants of pro-abortionists which has the effect of swaying me the other way. So rant away and I'll continue to search out facts. That includes the use of a dictionary. I call a spade a spade.
A serious biological and philosophical question and debate.
The debate over the time when the start of an embryo or an embryo becomes a "human life" has been going on for a long time. The questions are - Does that occur the instant a sperm and egg combine or later? Just because from the instant they meet there is a potential for a possible human child to result, some take the "more cautious" view and say the instant they meet is the start of a human life. But if that were the case, one must remember that women sometimes have a miscarriage later in the pregnancy. Does that make God or "mother nature,"an abortionist??
The view one accepts may be based on faith or science, and that seems to be where the debate stands for many
Abortion is a non-issue.
Abortion is a non-issue. Pro-lifers are concerned about the taking of a human life, which is fair enough. If life begins at conception, it begins before conception as well, as the zygote is a product of two living cells. Nothing really magical happens when that happens, other than the combination of genetic data into one developing organism.
The real issue is about personhood. Murder is a crime and a tragedy because it kills a PERSON, not a human being. We lament the loss of a personality, a mind, not the physical components that are part of it.
So the issue shouldn't be when life begins. It's irrelevant and impossible to qualify in one way. The issue is when personhood begins. And from what we know of psychology and biology, that's not until well after birth.
Abortion is really an interesting issue. Many cultures in the past practiced abortion using toxic herbs (in small enough doses to induce miscarriage rather than death) or surgeries, and it's really only become a topic of controversy recently.
skirkz...
To quote you: "Plan B is not a contraceptive measure, rather, an abortive measure."
Plan B is not an abortive measure. It does not cause an abortion. Saying it is is not true.
To quote you: "[Contraception]...by definition, is prevention of fertilization."
IUDs are a contraceptive. The do not prevent fertilization, but prevent implantattion.
To quote you: "I am very opinionated about the taking of an innocent life."
How about innocent people put to death in our justice syste? What about Iraqi civilians killed in our war? What about the 40,000 people who die in the USA as a result of not having health insurance?
To quote you: "[Pardon]... my understanding of the English dictionary" and "...I'll continue to search out facts. That includes the use of a dictionary."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraception
"Definition of CONTRACEPTION: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation"
So PP...
When do you think you may become a person (assuming that you are in fact a human being)? By your estimation you could have been tossed off a bridge in a toe sack full of rocks at birth and that would be the same as if you were never born.
Separation of Church and State
In order to deal with all the question of 'when does life begin', I personally believe that life begins when it no longer requires the parent for support. Meaning, that when a fetus can live outside the parents’ body and support its self, it is a separate entity. But until that happens (about 6 months of pregnancy I believe), it is, as I believe it is something similar to a parasite as it takes nutriment from the parent (just as cancer takes nutriment for the Self). But yes Persnickety Persimmon, it really is a non-issue.
I have to wonder why this has even gone this far. The whole reason we started this country was for the separation of church and state. I have no religious affiliation, so why are decisions that affect me being influenced by a specific religious group? I can guarantee you that it will cost more to raise and support a child than it will to offer Plan B at local drug stores and also to cover birth control on insurance.
People make poor choices, it’s a fact. The best we can do is to educate people and try to keep the recidivism to a minimum.
Look up conception...
Doesn't happen without fertilization. Perhaps you should draw the line 9+ months later and share a toe sack with PP. Who knows when the spirit (personhood?) comes to the child being formed in the womb? AFTER birth with the first breath? Oh, but that's AFTER the womb. For all you really know, life starts with the gleam in your daddy's eye. Or AFTER he closes them. You have drawn the line in your own mind. You make no valid case with me. Keep ranting. It's your right.
@skirkz: if you had been
@skirkz: if you had been dropped off a bridge at 6 months old, to you, it would make no difference. You were not cognizant, you were not conscious, and "you" did not exist. You were a possibility, a potential, but nothing that makes you you, save your DNA, existed yet.
I think birth is a great place to draw the line at abortion.
So, then, life...
...starts with an opinion? Well, then, I must have attained personhood. Glad I was given the chance. That way I was able to form the opinion on day one that the right tasted better than the left.
Your incognisant rants ar not making a case yet.
Umm, skirkz, a dictionary may
Umm, skirkz, a dictionary may benefit you. Cognizance and consciousness are not the ability form an opinion (though forming one does require them).
PP, you must have never had a
PP, you must have never had a child. At six months of age my boys were smiling at me, talking (ga ga) with me and learning from every little thing in their environment. You cannot tell me that a 6 mo. old baby is not conscious. If you really think that then you are still not conscious and the world would be better off with you dropping off a bridge.
@zigidyz: when you have an
@zigidyz: when you have an actual argument, please come back. At 6 months old, a baby does not have a concept of self, language, the ability to perceive (as opposed to sense), or the ability to form long-term memories.
But oh, your baby smiles and makes baby noises. Boy, I guess the only explanation for that is its fully conscious and has all the faculties of a fully developed human being! Just like when my dog looks at me I can tell he has a full-running monologue going inside his head and if only he could talk! The things he would say!
Have you ever had a child PP?
Have you ever had a child PP? At six months old, when my child would cry or be cranky, the only thing that would shut him up was to hold him in front of a mirror. I disagree that a baby is not self aware at that age. He/she sure is aware that he/she is hungry, uncomfortable, etc.
I would think that being a father and recognizing how my children developed gives me an "actual argument".
Also, please draw from your
Also, please draw from your all knowing, god-like knowledge and tell us all when a human being is "fully developed". I'm sure many readers would be glad to know whether or not their children or even themselves are in reality "fully developed human beings".
@zigidyz: again, you're
@zigidyz: again, you're talking about sensation, not perception. Jellyfish react when they're hungry. Snails react when they're injured. Plants react when they're dehydrated. Are they aware? Conscious? Absolutely not.
So no, being a father does not give you an actual argument. You are an outside observer with utterly no knowledge of what's going on underneath the surface. And furthermore, as a father, you have a vested interest in perceiving your baby as something more. Just like as it grows up, I'm sure you'll think your child is something special (as all parents do), when in fact it'll be no different than any other child out there. That is not an argument, it is a bias.
I don't know why you're even arguing this, though. Is it because you'd like to believe your baby already has a personality and is already the person it will grow up to be? No one can seriously argue such a thing. And it's not a bad thing.
Anyway, here's an article on this very topic! If you don't already have a subscription, it's well worth it, even though the magazine has become more like Discover Magazine in recent years (which is also a fine magazine, but it tends towards the sensational).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness...
Suffice it to conclude...
....that PP is not a parent. Thus the avoidance of the question.
13-17 year old girls who
13-17 year old girls who cannot buy Plan B over the counter are not women. Where does parental responsibility begin and end?
Most likely BO's decision was mostly political. He does have an election to win next year.
Also, Planned Parenthood happens to make a lot of money selling Plan B. And we all know they cater to young teenage girls.
“The reality is that putting this drug on the shelf at local stores would cost Planned Parenthood millions of dollar in revenue.”
By the way the Catholic Bishops are only asking that tax payer dollars not go towards contraceptives or abortions and that those services not be mandated as preventative care by the government. And they don't want to be told by the government what services to provide in their hospitals either. Just as doctors and nurses should not have to perform such services if they have moral and/or religious objections.
What do all you pro-choicers say when a BABY born weighing a little over 9 ounces survives and flourishes? Was it just a mass of tissue?
My question to whomever, is:
If a person is not a person until they are cognitive(is that what you called them PP?) then what about people who are mentally handicapped? Where is the line drawn? I for one(my opinion) believe that when there is potential life(at conception) the baby should be protected. If there is no standard then we should start taking all of the mentally handicapped people, no matter how old, out and "disposing" of them. It sounds like Eugenics to me. All life is special. Jeremiah 1:5.
BTW, PP you are messed up.
skirkz
"Definition of CONCEPTION
1a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"
Again, an IUD is a contraceptive. It works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. It does not prevent fertilization.
skirks and el boorba....
It seems that the dictionary may need to be updated.
My take on our conversation is that the three of us are drawing a distinction between methods that are preventing the fertilization of an egg, and methods which prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg.
Most people, I think, associate the word "contraceptive" with processes which prevent the egg and sperm from meeting - condoms, some pills, sponge, diaphram, Plan B pill(Levonorgestrel), etc.
The word contraception clearly is currently used in the larger sense to include everything which prevents a pregnancy, including those which prevent implantation, such as an IUD, some birth control pills, and RU-486 (mifepristone), which is different from the Plan-B pill. I think many people are not understanding that this is the case. And skirkz, if you do draw a distinction, then what word would you use for processes that prevent pregnancy only by preventing fertilization? It's an interesting question, I think.
Some religions believe the fertilized egg has a "soul". Some believe it happens at the first breath, or after one year. Some don't believe in a soul at all, or take a medical standpoint on when a fetus is "alive". Essentially, the basic point is whether or not the existing woman, who clearly is "alive", has the right to her personal religious beliefs in the matter. Clearly, the official 'religious' standpoint is that she is not, regardless of her personal religion (or lack thereof) entitled to her own beliefs. And that, my friends, is NOT religious freedom. You might as well require everyone attend a certain brand of church on Sunday.
El boorba
Cross IUDs off my list of contraceptives.
justlivin...
That 10 oz. baby would have died without modern medical science. If it had been left in God's hands, that baby would have died.
"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." (James 5:14-15 ASV)
@justlivin: if you can't
@justlivin: if you can't differentiate between life (of which any cell--including a sperm and an ovum--falls under) and personhood, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on this matter. Saying I'm "messed up" simply because I accurately state that a person doesn't become conscious for over a year (probably longer) after birth is not an argument, it's a value statement, and apparently you don't value reality.
Considering I didn't bring up killing any person outside the womb, you'd do well to reflect on why you said what you did about the mentally handicapped (which, in case you weren't aware, isn't a single condition). I'm not for killing people--are you?
Calypso....then surely
You wouldn't mind if all churches immediately stopped recieving billions in tax breaks every year. After all, if the government should stay out of funding things that religious people don't like, then the government should also stay out of funding things non-religious people don't like - correct?