The War on Contraception?

[prana_md]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html

"A growing number of conservatives see birth control as part of an ailing culture that overemphasizes sex and devalues human life. Is this the beginning of the next culture war?"

(There's free registration if you don't have an NYT account already)

Good stuff, no matter what your views on contraception and abortion are.

 

[prana_md]

Contra-Contraception
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: May 7, 2006

The English writer Daniel Defoe is best remembered today for creating the ultimate escapist fantasy, "Robinson Crusoe," but in 1727 he sent the British public into a scandalous fit with the publication of a nonfiction work called "Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom." After apparently being asked to tone down the title for a subsequent edition, Defoe came up with a new one — "A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed" — that only put a finer point on things. The book wasn't a tease, however. It was a moralizing lecture. After the wanton years that followed the restoration of the monarchy, a time when both theaters and brothels multiplied, social conservatism rooted itself in the English bosom. Self-appointed Christian morality police roamed the land, bent on restricting not only homosexuality and prostitution but also what went on between husbands and wives.

It was this latter subject that Defoe chose to address. The sex act and sexual desire should not be separated from reproduction, he and others warned, else "a man may, in effect, make a ***** of his own wife." To highlight one type of then-current wickedness, Defoe gives a scene in which a young woman who is about to marry asks a friend for some "recipes." "Why, you little Devil, you would not take Physick to kill the child?" the friend asks as she catches her drift. "No," the young woman answers, "but there may be Things to prevent Conception; an't there?" The friend is scandalized and argues that the two amount to the same thing, but the bride to be dismisses her: "I cannot understand your Niceties; I would not be with Child, that's all; there's no harm in that, I hope." One prime objective of England's Christian warriors in the 1720's was to stamp out what Defoe called "the diabolical practice of attempting to prevent childbearing by physical preparations."

The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

The American Life League is a lay Catholic organization, and for years — especially since Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae" encyclical of 1968 forbade "any action which either before, at the moment of or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation" — being anti-contraception was largely a Catholic thing. Protestants and other non-Catholics tended to look on curiously as they took part in the general societywide acceptance of various forms of birth control. But no longer. Organizations like the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which inject a mixture of religion and medicine into the social sphere, operate from a broadly Christian perspective that includes opposition to some forms of birth control. Edward R. Martin Jr., a lawyer for the public-interest law firm Americans United for Life, whose work includes seeking to restrict abortion at the state level and representing pharmacists who have refused to prescribe emergency contraception, told me: "We see contraception and abortion as part of a mind-set that's worrisome in terms of respecting life. If you're trying to build a culture of life, then you have to start from the very beginning of life, from conception, and you have to include how we think and act with regard to sexuality and contraception." Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002 to the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee despite (or perhaps because of) his opposition to contraception, sounded not a little like Daniel Defoe in a 1999 essay he wrote: "Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."

As with other efforts — against gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide — the anti-birth-control campaign isn't centralized; it seems rather to be part of the evolution of the conservative movement. The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is considered one of the leading intellectual figures of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. In a December 2005 column in The Christian Post titled "Can Christians Use Birth Control?" he wrote: "The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age — and one of the most ominous. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.. . .A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control — and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies." MORE!

 

[awval999]

Your copy of the first page tempted me to register and read the NINE page article.

I'm typing as I'm reading. First thing that sticks out in my mind is that this country will never allow contraception to be made illegal. Yeah some people might argue for it and they might have groups devoted to making contraception illegal. And we'll have the opposition write scare tactic stories like this one I'm reading. No matter what. No matter how much we argue on this board about it, contraception is here to stay. Any politican that would actively admit or vote on making contraception illegal would never EVER be re-elected. Any law passed would be ruled unconstitutional via the SCOTUS. No constitutional amendment would ever pass.

Moving on, Experts overwhelmingly considered it safe: in December 2003 the F.D.A.'s own joint advisory panel voted 28-0 that it was "safe for use in the nonprescription setting" and then voted 23 to 4 in favor of granting Plan B over-the-counter status.

It is sickening that Plan B isn't over the counter.

Here in the U.S., people are still arguing about whether it's O.K. to have sex.

I do believe as we age and turn 50 or so, we won't be dealing with these problems anymore. I think our generation is ready, like Europe's, to be more open about sexuality.

 

[yanky5]

A growing number of conservatives see birth control as part of an ailing culture that overemphasizes sex and devalues human life.

This is true. American culture encourages lewdness and whoring around. If you watch TV, they portray the idealized feminized woman as a ***** who has sex with a different man every day. Plan B just encourages more whoring around. In reality, you shouldn't have sex until you get married. This is G-d's will and doing so will get rid of all these "abortion" issues, abandoned kids, and STD's. However, there is also a good use for birth control if you can't afford to have a lot of kids.

I personally love kids and hope to have at least 5. But I will probably tell my wife to use birth control too since you don't want to have too many at one shot.

 

[prana_md]

First thing that sticks out in my mind is that this country will never allow contraception to be made illegal.

This is probably true, but what I found remarkable in the article was the lengths people were already going to to restrict access to contraception, while not making it illegal. Like the debate over whether pharmacists should have to give out birth control and Plan B. Or the abstinence only programs, here and abroad. Or the effort to disparage condoms as effective protection against STDs. It's like abortion: Roe v. Wade still stands, but with many restrictions.

Thanks for reading! Makes me want to do an OB/GYN rotation asap.

 

[dnw826]

A growing number of conservatives see birth control as part of an ailing culture that overemphasizes and devalues human life.

This is true. American culture encourages ness and whoring around. If you watch TV, they portray the idealized feminized woman as a who has with a different man every day. Plan B just encourages more whoring around. In reality, you shouldn't have until you get married. This is G-d's will and doing so will get rid of all these "abortion" issues, abandoned kids, and STD's. However, there is also a good use for birth control if you can't afford to have a lot of kids.

I personally love kids and hope to have at least 5. But I will probably tell my wife to use birth control too since you don't want to have too many at one shot.

I agree to a point. I see Plan B as a good thing. I disagree on the until marriage, if you are in a monogamous, committed relationship. But in reality, how many marriages stay that way nowadays?

Even as a defiant liberal, I believe that the way is "sold" in this country is absolutely disgusting. It really makes me sick when I walk into a grade school and there are 7 year olds wearing things that would make me blush. And tv? That's one of the reasons I don't have cable anymore. I had enough of the late night s Gone Wild commercials every 5 minutes when I would flip through channels.

However, I do think that birth control is a very good thing. I think that is fine if "used properly". I just think that maybe if we valued women more in this country as anything other than objects then it wouldn't be such a problem. I am not pro-censureship, I just think that a lot of people in charge of the media have no morals. Maybe if they did, we wouldn't be bombarded with all day.

 

[dnw826]

This is probably true, but what I found remarkable in the article was the lengths people were already going to to restrict access to contraception, while not making it illegal. Like the debate over whether pharmacists should have to give out birth control and Plan B. Or the abstinence only programs, here and abroad. Or the effort to disparage s as effective protection against STDs. It's like abortion: Roe v. Wade still stands, but with many restrictions.

Thanks for reading! Makes me want to do an OB/GYN rotation asap.

Personally, I think that the pro-abstinence doctrine to teach kids is foolish. There were some studies out a few months ago (don't have time to look right now) about how it actually ended up being worse for the "unprepared" kids. Plus, I was a teenager. My mom told me not to have ...what do you think a teenager would do if told that?

 

[prana_md]

Two papers that might have what you're looking for:
Abstinence-Only Program Analysis
Emerging Answers
They're both from the National Campaign to End Teen Pregnancy

 

[BklynWill]

Women urged to get 'morning after' pill
May 8, 2006
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2006/05/08/women_urged_to_get_morning_after_pill/

WASHINGTON --Get an advance prescription for emergency contraception so it will be on hand if you need it, the nation's largest gynecologist group advised women Monday.

"We want women to be prepared, well before a contraceptive failure or unprotected sex occurs. Afterward may be too late," said Dr. Michael Mennuti, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The morning-after pill is a high dose of regular birth control pills. It cuts the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if used within 72 hours of rape, condom failure or just forgetting routine contraception.

The earlier it's taken, the more effective it is. But it can be hard to find a doctor to write a prescription in time, especially on weekends and holidays.

Citing assessments that easier access could halve the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies, ACOG and many women's groups have backed an attempt by Plan B's maker to sell the morning-after pill without a prescription, the way it's sold in Britain and Canada -- and in a handful of U.S. states.

But last year, top-ranking Food and Drug Administration officials overruled their own scientists' decision that nonprescription sales would be safe and, citing concern that young teens might use the pills, indefinitely postponed a decision.

The drug has no effect if a woman is already pregnant. It works by blocking ovulation or fertilization.

Conservatives who consider the pill tantamount to abortion have intensely lobbied the White House to reject nonprescription sales, saying they could increase teen sex.

The new "Ask me" campaign takes the discussion back to doctors' offices. ACOG is providing its 49,000 members with waiting-room posters to urge women of childbearing age to ask about a prescription they could keep on hand in case they need emergency contraception in the future.

"Accidents happen," the posters say.

 

[dnw826]

Women urged to get 'morning after' pill
May 8, 2006
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2006/05/08/women_urged_to_get_morning_after_pill/

WASHINGTON --Get an advance prescription for emergency contraception so it will be on hand if you need it, the nation's largest gynecologist group advised women Monday.

"We want women to be prepared, well before a contraceptive failure or unprotected occurs. Afterward may be too late," said Dr. Michael Mennuti, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The morning-after pill is a high dose of regular birth control pills. It cuts the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if used within 72 hours of , failure or just forgetting routine contraception.

The earlier it's taken, the more effective it is. But it can be hard to find a doctor to write a prescription in time, especially on weekends and holidays.

Citing assessments that easier access could halve the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies, ACOG and many women's groups have backed an attempt by Plan B's maker to sell the morning-after pill without a prescription, the way it's sold in Britain and Canada -- and in a handful of U.S. states.

But last year, top-ranking Food and Drug Administration officials overruled their own scientists' decision that nonprescription sales would be safe and, citing concern that young teens might use the pills, indefinitely postponed a decision.

The drug has no effect if a woman is already pregnant. It works by blocking ovulation or fertilization.

Conservatives who consider the pill tantamount to abortion have intensely lobbied the White House to reject nonprescription sales, saying they could increase .

The new "Ask me" campaign takes the discussion back to doctors' offices. ACOG is providing its 49,000 members with waiting-room posters to urge women of childbearing age to ask about a prescription they could keep on hand in case they need emergency contraception in the future.

"Accidents happen," the posters say.

And this pill is not something to be taken lightly. It can have serious complications, and it makes you bleed like crazy from what I've heard (never taken it myself, though I hear it might also help with the treatment of uterine fibroids, which I have had removed). Not something to just take because you are too lazy for the pill or a .

 

[prana_md]

I worked in a women's health clinic and regularly wrote women for "back-up" prescriptions. Of course, these are patients with which we had already discussed extensively their plans for contraception and safer sex practices.

Plan B is fairly benign, and the most common complaints my patients had was nausea and vomiting. Some women said that the period right after they took it (usually comes pretty soon) was heavier, others said lighter.

 

[CatsandCradles]

What an interesting issue!

Abstinence is a mixed lot. Liberals say it's useless. Conservatives say it's the answer to everything. Personally, I think you are somewhat foolish if you fall into either of these two camps without thinking what the other side has to say. It makes me angry that conservative Christians (of which I am one of) would so naiveley think that many teenagers will not have sex before marriage. I feel that it is foolhardy. Yes I know that abstinence is the way to not contract STDs. Yes I know that abstinece is the way to not have teen pregnancy.

But teenagers and young people (of which I am one of) are driven by hormones. Personally I did not let my hormones get the better side of me - but I'm not going to go around and say that "abstinence worked for me, so we should enforce it on every one else." There is something really naieve about that line of thinking and every time I see a televangelist make that comment it makes me angry because I know that the liberals and people of other religions will be laughing at us.

So on this issue I think the liberals have us beaten, and I dare say this - they have beaten us rightfully so. And let me elaborate even further:

To drag us off tangent - a certain priest who was teaching at my undergraduate institution also taught at a private school and we had an interesting discussion over contraception. Some parents wanted the school to place in vending machines inside of the lavatories with condoms and spermacide. And this caused an uproar in the school.

Personally, as I was listening to the priest tell me the story, I sided with the parents who wanted to place the machines in the lavatories. The priest did not disagreed with me but told me what some of the opposing side of the argument made, "If you place the machines in the lavatories, your basically saying to the kids - we're placing these vending machines here because you're not capable of leading an upright moral life"

Now some of you liberals reading this will probably be scratching your heads and wondering what on earth are these weird conservatives talking about...

...basically placing the vending machines in the lavatories implies the message that "We adults no longer can trust you." The parent(s) can no longer trust thier daughter and son; instead the parents now assume that thier child will have sex at an early age. The parents have given up trusting their son and daughter. If you can't trust your family, who can you trust? Doing this means you're symbolically telling the kids, "we don't think your good enough for us to trust you"

Now, I am not a Catholic, and I made the argument that - humans beings are not capable of any good at all - so we might as well just bloody place the contraception in the lavatories. For me it is the lesser of two evils. One evil in that we may no longer trust our children versus the other evil being the spread of STDs and possibly early pregnancy and further consquences (the young father abandoning his children, the mother choosing to abort the pregnancy)

In short, I side with the liberals on the issue of contraception. But let me say to the liberal thinkers that I do not support the completely insane television networks like MTV that portray women as sex objects.

I am a 23 year old male, yes I am very attracted to the opposite sex, but whenever I see that commercial on TV that show women as objects, and not human beings, I feel very bad. Both for those women, and for our society. We are sending a terrible message to the young women of our society.

These shows degrade women into objects of mere sex. When men see that, this only leads them to think of women as mere object and not as a human beings > Hence more divorce and spousal abuse that were instigated by men.

Please don't hesitate to criticize what I wrote here, because maybe you have a good counter point that could change my mind.

C&C

 

[mshheaddoc]

Personally, I think that the pro-abstinence doctrine to teach kids is foolish. There were some studies out a few months ago (don't have time to look right now) about how it actually ended up being worse for the "unprepared" kids. Plus, I was a teenager. My mom told me not to have ...what do you think a teenager would do if told that?

But parents need to explain the risks to their children. I was educated enough to know what the risks were but just the general ones. I didn't want kids and I didn't want STD's. Education is one of the most important components of life. But teaching strictly a narrow-view of a topic leaves ignorance, IMHO.

 

[dnw826]

What an interesting issue!

Abstinence is a mixed lot. Liberals say it's useless. Conservatives say it's the answer to everything. Personally, I think you are somewhat foolish if you fall into either of these two camps without thinking what the other side has to say. It makes me angry that conservative Christians (of which I am one of) would so naiveley think that many teenagers will not have before marriage. I feel that it is foolhardy. Yes I know that abstinence is the way to not contract STDs. Yes I know that abstinece is the way to not have pregnancy.

But teenagers and young people (of which I am one of) are driven by hormones. Personally I did not let my hormones get the better side of me - but I'm not going to go around and say that "abstinence worked for me, so we should enforce it on every one else." There is something really naieve about that line of thinking and every time I see a televangelist make that comment it makes me angry because I know that the liberals and people of other religions will be laughing at us.

So on this issue I think the liberals have us beaten, and I dare say this - they have beaten us rightfully so. And let me elaborate even further:

To drag us off tangent - a certain priest who was teaching at my undergraduate institution also taught at a private school and we had an interesting discussion over contraception. Some parents wanted the school to place in vending machines inside of the lavatories with s and spermacide. And this caused an uproar in the school.

Personally, as I was listening to the priest tell me the story, I sided with the parents who wanted to place the machines in the lavatories. The priest did not disagreed with me but told me what some of the opposing side of the argument made, "If you place the machines in the lavatories, your basically saying to the kids - we're placing these vending machines here because you're not capable of leading an upright m life"

Now some of you liberals reading this will probably be scratching your heads and wondering what on earth are these weird conservatives talking about...

...basically placing the vending machines in the lavatories implies the message that "We s no longer can trust you." The parent(s) can no longer trust thier daughter and son; instead the parents now assume that thier child will have at an early age. The parents have given up trusting their son and daughter. If you can't trust your family, who can you trust? Doing this means you're symbolically telling the kids, "we don't think your good enough for us to trust you"

Now, I am not a Catholic, and I made the argument that - humans beings are not capable of any good at all - so we might as well just bloody place the contraception in the lavatories. For me it is the lesser of two evils. One evil in that we may no longer trust our children versus the other evil being the spread of STDs and possibly early pregnancy and further consquences (the young father abandoning his children, the mother choosing to abort the pregnancy)

In short, I side with the liberals on the issue of contraception. But let me say to the liberal thinkers that I do not support the completely insane television networks like MTV that portray women as objects.

I am a 23 year old male, yes I am very attracted to the opposite , but whenever I see that commercial on TV that show women as objects, and not human beings, I feel very bad. Both for those women, and for our society. We are sending a terrible message to the young women of our society.

These shows degrade women into objects of mere . When men see that, this only leads them to think of women as mere object and not as a human beings > Hence more divorce and spousal abuse that were instigated by men.

Please don't hesitate to criticize what I wrote here, because maybe you have a good counter point that could change my mind.

C&C

👍

I agree with you on your reasoning and on treating women like objects. Good post!

One of my friends told me that when she and her sisters were teenagers, her mom gave them the talk. She said it's fine if you have . If you get pregnant, I'll help you raise the baby. Freaked them straight out and they thus waited until they were much older. Having consent can sometimes be too much to handle. Doesn't make it as much fun, right?

 

[yanky5]

Basically most of you are saying that abstinance will solve everything but it is "foolish" because teenagers can't control themselves. I think this is wrong. I never had sex before marriage and it is not so hard to do. AND I'M A GUY. For women, it is much easier. Millions of religious people practice this and it is not so hard to do. You just think it is hard bec. you are so influenced by this immoral culture. The issue is that teenagers have no moral backing to do so because they are bombarded with every single TV show portreying teenagers having sex. They also portray parents and elderly individuals as stupid people and the dumb teenagers as normal. If society will clean up the airwaves, encourage morality and respect for your parents and elders, then it will be considered more mainstream. Anyone who encourages sex before marriage should be locked up in jail according to my opinion. But one man's voice means bull.

 

[mshheaddoc]

Ok, I don't believe that education should be abstinance only. Not everyone will abide by religious rights, but by not explaining how things work and the dangers we are at the end of a short stick. By "we" I mean society. Yes abstinance should be taught, but sex education is useful in many ways. We are curious by human nature. Not everyone might share the same opinions here and we have to respect that.

 

[vesper9]

Some may play fast and loose with virginity pledge, study finds

from the article

Rosenbaum found that 52 percent of those who said they had signed virginity pledges recanted them within a year. Additionally, 73 percent of those who told the first survey that they had taken a pledge but later had sex denied making such a promise when they were surveyed a second time.

 

[vesper9]

In short, I side with the liberals on the issue of contraception. But let me say to the liberal thinkers that I do not support the completely insane television networks like MTV that portray women as sex objects.

I am a 23 year old male, yes I am very attracted to the opposite sex, but whenever I see that commercial on TV that show women as objects, and not human beings, I feel very bad. Both for those women, and for our society. We are sending a terrible message to the young women of our society.

These shows degrade women into objects of mere sex. When men see that, this only leads them to think of women as mere object and not as a human beings > Hence more divorce and spousal abuse that were instigated by men.

Please don't hesitate to criticize what I wrote here, because maybe you have a good counter point that could change my mind.

C&C

it's like the chicken or the egg

IMHO the reason the media is filled with mainly sexual represenatations of women is because they reflect the patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes in this society...it's silly to blame the media, which only reflects the power systems that have been set up

we need a strong women's rights movement not more rhetoric about this country's "morality" problem (which would be reflected not through what we see on TV, but through our country's actions in turning a blind eye on Rwanda and Darfur, ignoring the HIV crisis, war in Iraq etc etc real issues)

 

[CatsandCradles]

we need a strong women's rights movement not more rhetoric about this country's "morality" problem (which would be reflected not through what we see on TV, but through our country's actions in turning a blind eye on Rwanda and Darfur, ignoring the HIV crisis, war in Iraq etc etc real issues)

I find this a fair critic of us conservatives. I'll go one step farther. Why on earth do we Christians spend so much time talking about homosexuality while there are people dying from numerous issues around the world.

Doesn't it seem stupid to you that we waste so much time and political energy debating homosexuality while it could be place to better uses elswhere in the world? So I can certaintly see why you liberals/secular folks scorn the religious camp.

There's a book out called "Rich Christians in a Hungry World," I haven't read it yet, but it's on my to do list.









(Sorry Sorry I'm dragging the post off the topic don't stone me please!!!!!!) 😀

 

[vesper9]

sorry, not to be anal...but there are a tons of religious liberals in this world (ie.e Jimmy Carter)......AND being a christian/catholic does not mean you have to suffer and be mis-represented by the conservative reich wing (which doesn't seem to care about the poor, families, environment, peace, etc all those real Christian values)

 

[dnw826]

Basically most of you are saying that abstinance will solve everything but it is "foolish" because teenagers can't control themselves. I think this is wrong. I never had before marriage and it is not so hard to do. AND I'M A GUY. For women, it is much easier. Millions of religious people practice this and it is not so hard to do. You just think it is hard bec. you are so influenced by this imm culture. The issue is that teenagers have no m backing to do so because they are bombarded with every single TV show portreying teenagers having . They also portray parents and elderly individuals as stupid people and the dumb teenagers as normal. If society will clean up the airwaves, encourage m ity and respect for your parents and elders, then it will be considered more mainstream. Anyone who encourages before marriage should be locked up in jail according to my opinion. But one man's voice means bull.

It's really not any easier for us women. 😉

 

[dnw826]

I find this a fair critic of us conservatives. I'll go one step farther. Why on earth do we Christians spend so much time talking about ity while there are people dying from numerous issues around the world.

Doesn't it seem stupid to you that we waste so much time and political energy debating ity while it could be place to better uses elswhere in the world? So I can certaintly see why you liberals/secular folks scorn the religious camp.

There's a book out called "Rich Christians in a Hungry World," I haven't read it yet, but it's on my to do list.


(Sorry Sorry I'm dragging the post off the topic don't stone me please!!!!!!) 😀

I agree with you. There are so many more important things. At least couples who marry and adopt are (as studies show) at least giving one poor child a chance. Foster care is not all fun and games. There are much more important things to argue than whether "your G-d" disapproves of something someone else is doing that doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[caroladybelle]

I personally love kids and hope to have at least 5. But I will probably tell my wife to use birth control too since you don't want to have too many at one shot.

Why are you "telling" your wife to use birth control?

It is so much easier for YOU to use the birth control, with much less danger to health of either of you.

 

[caroladybelle]

Basically most of you are saying that abstinance will solve everything but it is "foolish" because teenagers can't control themselves. I think this is wrong. I never had sex before marriage and it is not so hard to do. AND I'M A GUY. For women, it is much easier.

What makes you think that it is easier for a woman to be abstinent than a man?

Is that not an belief, based on media stereotypes that feeds the very problem that you decry?

 

[yanky5]

Why are you "telling" your wife to use birth control?

It is so much easier for YOU to use the birth control, with much less danger to health of either of you.

It is a technical religous thing and you would not understand so please stop nit picking small things out of my remark and respond to the big picture. I thought that it would be easier for women because men have less issues to worry about if they fool around then women do. As far as I know, men can't become pregnant and usually women don't abuse or rape men in a relationship (It's the other way around).

 

[trustwomen]

I thought that it would be easier for women because men have less issues to worry about if they fool around then women do.

On the contrary, men can get somebody else pregnant and wind up with a kid they don't want (they have no control over this), whereas if women get pregnant they don't necessarily have to have the baby and their partner need never know. Men have more to fear from fooling around than women do; with the exception that women are more vulnerable to STDs than men (when condoms are not used). I don't approve of fooling around, for either sex (i.e. married people cheating); but expecting abstinence before marriage is a disastrous idea IMO. You wind up with a lot of early marriages between horny teenagers (marriages that don't last), guilt and shame about natural sexual desires, and less contraceptive use. And, of course, rampant infidelity. Maybe not from you, yanky5, and congrats on that, but overall it holds true.

Empower girls so that they only have sex when they truly want to (i.e. when they are getting as much pleasure out of it as the boys are) and teenage sex will diminish to a less alarming level. Not to mention that the sex will be safer, and the men who still get laid will be of a more sensitive and impressive caliber.

 

[misfit]

I have two ideas I'd like to share regarding issues brought up in this message thread.

1) Religious and secular views or opinions or philosophies are all fine and dandy as long as you remember one thing... they are YOUR views alone, no one else's in particular and, therefore, they are to be used to guide only YOUR decisions. The world would get along much better if people minded their own "business" instead of trying to force their particular brand of world-view upon others.
I find both religious and so-called liberal secularists guilty of this often... just watch any 24 hr news channel and their respective talking heads...

2) As far as the controversy over pharmacists who wish not to dispense birth control AT ALL or those who wish to take it upon themselves to restrict it (e.g. not giving Plan B to teens who request it), there should be no controversy... IT IS NOT THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE!!! Please refer to my argument #1 above. If they have a strong moral objection to filling such a prescription (or handing it out in OTC form), they should not be in the business of being a pharmacist. They should realize that as an allied healthcare professional, they are NOT to be in a position to hoist their personal views over patients, especially over a legally prescribed medication that is available and approved for such usage in the United States. The decision rests with the patient alone, who has sought medical treatment from a physician and been legally given a prescription to fill. My view is that refusal to fill these prescriptions amounts to an act of malpractice.

I HAVE SPOKEN.... you may now proceed with the rest of your lives...

misfit

 

[All4MyDaughter]

2) As far as the controversy over pharmacists who wish not to dispense birth control AT ALL or those who wish to take it upon themselves to restrict it (e.g. not giving Plan B to teens who request it), there should be no controversy... IT IS NOT THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE!!! Please refer to my argument #1 above. If they have a strong moral objection to filling such a prescription (or handing it out in OTC form), they should not be in the business of being a pharmacist. They should realize that as an allied healthcare professional, they are NOT to be in a position to hoist their personal views over patients, especially over a legally prescribed medication that is available and approved for such usage in the United States. The decision rests with the patient alone, who has sought medical treatment from a physician and been legally given a prescription to fill. My view is that refusal to fill these prescriptions amounts to an act of malpractice.

Do you think that every OB-GYN physician should be required to provide elective abortions? After all, abortion is legal and approved for the termination of pregnancy in the United States.

 

[sdn1977]

I have two ideas I'd like to share regarding issues brought up in this message thread.

1) Religious and secular views or opinions or philosophies are all fine and dandy as long as you remember one thing... they are YOUR views alone, no one else's in particular and, therefore, they are to be used to guide only YOUR decisions. The world would get along much better if people minded their own "business" instead of trying to force their particular brand of world-view upon others.
I find both religious and so-called liberal secularists guilty of this often... just watch any 24 hr news channel and their respective talking heads...

2) As far as the controversy over pharmacists who wish not to dispense birth control AT ALL or those who wish to take it upon themselves to restrict it (e.g. not giving Plan B to teens who request it), there should be no controversy... IT IS NOT THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE!!! Please refer to my argument #1 above. If they have a strong moral objection to filling such a prescription (or handing it out in OTC form), they should not be in the business of being a pharmacist. They should realize that as an allied healthcare professional, they are NOT to be in a position to hoist their personal views over patients, especially over a legally prescribed medication that is available and approved for such usage in the United States. The decision rests with the patient alone, who has sought medical treatment from a physician and been legally given a prescription to fill. My view is that refusal to fill these prescriptions amounts to an act of malpractice.

I HAVE SPOKEN.... you may now proceed with the rest of your lives...

misfit

I appreciate your opinion & your right to have it. However, there is a long standing precedent for pharmacists to make the choices in what they choose to dispense. This goes wayyyy back to oral contraceptives themselves - many decades ago some pharmacists wouldn't dispense Ovral - the first OC.

This argument isn't isolated to drugs which affect reproduction. I'm not sure how old you are, but I think you're an anesthesiologist. Are you old enough to remember when IV nitroglycerin was not commercially available (this was the late '70's)? It was documented in the cardiovascular literature as being effective & was requested by the surgeons in my facility. However, it had to be compounded from sublingual tablets which made the product very labile in addition to being suspect with respect to osmolality, tonicity, sterility - however, they wanted to use it. There were pharmacists on the staff who refused for a variety of reasons, however, as a dept we were able to staff the pharmacy with enough of us who would compound the product after meeting with the surgeons so we could provide for their needs. The surgeons were very respectful of the concerns the pharmacists had & were willing to work with us.

My point is...we all have the ability to make the professional choice which is reflected in the law. Choosing not to dispense a particular medication (you can think Vicodin ES as well as Plan B) is not malpractice - I refuse a lot of Vicodin rxs!! Currently, most states allow pharmacists to determine ahead of time what they choose not to dispense if they are choosing on moral grounds - this can be a complete drug class or an individual drug. The choice must be made ahead of time, a signed statement sent to whatever corporation (hospital, chain, etc) employs the pharmacist & procedures are in place to refer the pt to a provider who will dispense the product. Hopefully, this will avoid the most recent occurrences of inability to obtain a drug while still respecting the opinions (which are as valid as yours) of those who choose not to dispense.

 

[misfit]

sdn1977:

When you refer to the issue regarding a lack of IV nitroglycerin it appears the pharmacists were doing their jobs in protecting patients from potential harm.

Choosing to not fill a legally prescribed (the caveat is legally prescribed, not just anybody who's able to get a hold of script pad for illegally getting narcs) medication is an abdication of your job.

As far as states allowing pharmacists to object on moral grounds, I am not aware that more than a handful of states allow that practice. And yes, it is regulated to the extent that allows a patient to choose another pharmacist/pharmacy.

But, if what I am hearing is true, some pharmacists want to the ability to "electively" pick and choose whom they will dispense OTC or prescription contraceptives to. This opens up very dangerous territory. Basically, it allows the pharmacist to be capricious-- that is when it becomes malpractice.

I am not sure how old you think I am, sdn1977 and I am not an anesthesiologist.

All4MyDaughter:

My argument regarding contraceptives is NOT the same as performing elective abortions. What would be malpractice is those instances would be to somehow deny that patient from having the means to seek an abortion or giving false information regarding the procedure/risks/benefits/etc.

misfit

 

[kirexhana]

Basically most of you are saying that abstinance will solve everything but it is "foolish" because teenagers can't control themselves. I think this is wrong. I never had sex before marriage and it is not so hard to do. AND I'M A GUY. For women, it is much easier. Millions of religious people practice this and it is not so hard to do. You just think it is hard bec. you are so influenced by this immoral culture. The issue is that teenagers have no moral backing to do so because they are bombarded with every single TV show portreying teenagers having sex. They also portray parents and elderly individuals as stupid people and the dumb teenagers as normal. If society will clean up the airwaves, encourage morality and respect for your parents and elders, then it will be considered more mainstream. Anyone who encourages sex before marriage should be locked up in jail according to my opinion. But one man's voice means bull.

you're absolutely right that one man's voice means bull, particularly yours.

1. just because you choose to lead your life in a certain way doesn't mean it should apply to the rest of us.

2. are you REALLY so 18th century that you think all women are less sexually driven than men? women have needs too. they aren't chaste angels that will be ravished by horny, horny men. since you aren't a woman, there's no way you can possibly know what it feels like to be one.

3. what does marriage have to do with sex in the first place?
a. 1/3 of all marriages fail in the first 7 years.
b. if you are not sexually compatible as a couple, there is a possibility that one or both members of the union will cheat on the other, in seek of sexual satisfaction.
c. some people don't want kids. how would being married factor into whether they have sex at all?

4. what does wanting to have sex have to do with respecting parents and elders? stop equating sex with everything negative that you can pull out of your ass. why don't you pull out that huge stick instead. you're such a blowhard, go get laid or something.

 

[Kimka83]

I just think that the conservatives are going a bit too far.
No abortion, right?
Also no birth control!?!
Good plan guys, that is just going to do wonders for the country. (note the obvious sarcasm)

 

[Luba Licious]

I just think that the conservatives are going a bit too far.
No abortion, right?
Also no birth control!?!
Good plan guys, that is just going to do wonders for the country. (note the obvious sarcasm)

You're painting conservatives with a broad brush. This is a "splinter group". Not all conservatives, and not even a majority, feel this way. It's just a vocal minority. Like not all liberals agree with the right to have a partial birth abortion. There are many shades of grey, and to label an entire group based off the actions of a few is unfair and dishonest.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

sdn1977:

Choosing to not fill a legally prescribed (the caveat is legally prescribed, not just anybody who's able to get a hold of script pad for illegally getting narcs) medication is an abdication of your job.

As far as states allowing pharmacists to object on moral grounds, I am not aware that more than a handful of states allow that practice. And yes, it is regulated to the extent that allows a patient to choose another pharmacist/pharmacy.

But, if what I am hearing is true, some pharmacists want to the ability to "electively" pick and choose whom they will dispense OTC or prescription contraceptives to. This opens up very dangerous territory. Basically, it allows the pharmacist to be capricious-- that is when it becomes malpractice.

I am not sure how old you think I am, sdn1977 and I am not an anesthesiologist.

All4MyDaughter:

My argument regarding contraceptives is NOT the same as performing elective abortions. What would be malpractice is those instances would be to somehow deny that patient from having the means to seek an abortion or giving false information regarding the procedure/risks/benefits/etc.

misfit

Pharmacists decline to fill LEGAL prescriptions all the time. It's called professional judgement and is exercised for a variety of reasons on a daily basis. Just because a prescription has been written by a physician does not always mean that it is safe or appropriate for the patient. I can think of many examples.



I personally disagree with pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B and OC but I support their right to do so, as long as:

1. They own the pharmacy and are exercising their right to decide what medications to stock.

OR

2. They work for a corporate pharmacy that has a "right to object" policy

AND

3. The patient is given other means by which to obtain the drug in a timely manner.




Pharmacists are independent health practitioners, not pill-counting robots who do everything doctors and patients ask them to do. Demanding that a pharmacist dispense a medication he or she finds morally offensive is exactly the same as demanding that a physician perform a procedure he or she finds morally offensive.

Of course, pharmacists who don't believe in Plan B shouldn't work in a pharmacy that stocks it and expects them to dispense it. Just like a Jehovah Witness might not want to work in a transplant or transfusion unit. Or a pro-life OBGYN probably wouldn't want to work at an abortion clinic.

 

[sdn1977]

sdn1977:

When you refer to the issue regarding a lack of IV nitroglycerin it appears the pharmacists were doing their jobs in protecting patients from potential harm.

Choosing to not fill a legally prescribed (the caveat is legally prescribed, not just anybody who's able to get a hold of script pad for illegally getting narcs) medication is an abdication of your job.

As far as states allowing pharmacists to object on moral grounds, I am not aware that more than a handful of states allow that practice. And yes, it is regulated to the extent that allows a patient to choose another pharmacist/pharmacy.

But, if what I am hearing is true, some pharmacists want to the ability to "electively" pick and choose whom they will dispense OTC or prescription contraceptives to. This opens up very dangerous territory. Basically, it allows the pharmacist to be capricious-- that is when it becomes malpractice.

I am not sure how old you think I am, sdn1977 and I am not an anesthesiologist.

All4MyDaughter:

My argument regarding contraceptives is NOT the same as performing elective abortions. What would be malpractice is those instances would be to somehow deny that patient from having the means to seek an abortion or giving false information regarding the procedure/risks/benefits/etc.

misfit

Well...I for sure am old when it comes to folks on these forums. And..I think you are mistaken when it comes to what pharmacists can decide to pick and choose in the context of ec & oc. It is a whole drug or drug class - not based upon patient age, ethnicity, location, etc....

Now, when it comes to the complete practice of pharmacy, I can & I do pick & choose what to fill & form whom. I usually do this with rxs (legal or otherwise) of drugs of abuse. I can often spot abusers & they come from all backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, ages. I have on many occasions refused an rx just because I did not want to dispense to someone I either knew for a fact or felt strongly was an abuser. My own personal policy is I will not dispense CII from prescribers outside my geographic area. I've also refused to fill an rx NSAID for a disable pt who has been on warfarin, but had not told this to the presccriber. All these were legally written rxs & my refusal is supported in the law & by my employer. My job is not to fill every rx presented to me - it is to used my judgement on each rx and fill them appropriately!

My point about the ntg is the same as those who feel they are doing harm to dispense Plan B. It may not be harm in your eyes, but it is in theirs. Compounded medications or medications used for other than their oringinal purpose is accepted practice & done eveyday - its called "off label prescribing/dispensing" - a perfectly legal and medically acceptable occurrence.

None of this is malpractice which is injury due to ignorance, carelessness or malicious intent. Altho I do not share their opinion, these pharmacists do not want to hurt anyone and are not being careless. They are using their knowledge of the drug and with their own moral code are deciding the injury to all parties (potential or actual) is not something they want to do.

When there are sufficient alternatives in place, why would you want to "force" anyone to do something they feel is wrong? Employers don't feel the need to do so, the states do not feel the need to do so (& yes, almost all states now have laws in the works or in place to cover these circumstances) - why would you?

I do apologize if I alluded to an age older than you might be. I respect the abilities & responsibilities which come with your job and wouldn't presume to tell you how to do it. However, please respect the abilities & responsibilities which come with mine & try not tell me what to do - I've known for 30 years what to do as a pharmacist. You can give me an opinion if you like or dislike what I do, but what I do in my job and how I do it is not for you to decide.

 

[Em1]

Couple of points I wanted to make:

-More birth control = fewer abortions. Liberals should be making this argument more clearly and more often.

-Abstinence-only education is good in theory, but c'mon, we've all been teenagers. We ALL have rolled our eyes at things our parents or other adults have told us (about sex or otherwise), and there WILL be some proportion of teens who roll their eyes when told to wait to have sex. Those teens need to know how to protect themselves.

-Teenagers tend to have this "it won't happen to me" attitude about a lot of things, hence why so many of them don't wear seat belts or bike helmets. This adds to the need to educate them on how to prevent pg and disease.

-The Plan B issue is a little tricky, b/c its effectiveness continuously and rapidly declines the longer it takes for the pt to get it. "Wait till tomorrow so another pharmacist can fill it" may work for lots of other drugs, but it could be the difference in whether or not the pt gets pregnant. I'm not saying pharmacists should never have the right to refuse dispensing it, there just needs to be a better system in place so patients can get ahold of it QUICKLY (like otc or rxs in advance)

-Enjoy: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48199

 

[8744]

Personally, I think that the pro-abstinence doctrine to teach kids is foolish. There were some studies out a few months ago (don't have time to look right now) about how it actually ended up being worse for the "unprepared" kids. Plus, I was a teenager. My mom told me not to have ...what do you think a teenager would do if told that?

And yet I have seen countless teenagers who have unfettered access to condoms, pills, and the best sex-education that money can offer come through clinic big with child or dripping from "down there."

Studies are great but determining the effects abstinence teaching or the traditional bananna-over-the-condom curriculum is problematic. Too many variables that can't be controlled, you understand. People will argue with and refute even realtively simple single variable double-blinded studies.

Sometimes you have got to go with your gut which in this case tells me that we should teach sex-ed in school and provide birth control to teenagers but at the same time we should shift the paradigm from "they're going to do it anyways" to trying to instill some old-fashioned modesty in 'em. You've got to start somewhere.

 

[bananaface]

Women who have a history of "oops"es might benefit from advanced provision, but widespread advanced provision seems socially irresponsible. The Direct Access Study at UW found that it led to a significant decrease in the regularity of use of other contraceptive methods. Availability through prescriptive protocol at local pharmacies did not have this detrimental effect. I would like to see Plan B readily available from pharmacists and health departments rather than available directly on the shelf, because of this observed decrease in utilization of other BC methods. Plus, if it is OTC, fewer insurance plans will be willing to cover it.

 

[bananaface]

I have two ideas I'd like to share regarding issues brought up in this message thread.

1) Religious and secular views or opinions or philosophies are all fine and dandy as long as you remember one thing... they are YOUR views alone, no one else's in particular and, therefore, they are to be used to guide only YOUR decisions. The world would get along much better if people minded their own "business" instead of trying to force their particular brand of world-view upon others.
I find both religious and so-called liberal secularists guilty of this often... just watch any 24 hr news channel and their respective talking heads...

2) As far as the controversy over pharmacists who wish not to dispense birth control AT ALL or those who wish to take it upon themselves to restrict it (e.g. not giving Plan B to teens who request it), there should be no controversy... IT IS NOT THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE!!! Please refer to my argument #1 above. If they have a strong moral objection to filling such a prescription (or handing it out in OTC form), they should not be in the business of being a pharmacist. They should realize that as an allied healthcare professional, they are NOT to be in a position to hoist their personal views over patients, especially over a legally prescribed medication that is available and approved for such usage in the United States. The decision rests with the patient alone, who has sought medical treatment from a physician and been legally given a prescription to fill. My view is that refusal to fill these prescriptions amounts to an act of malpractice.

I HAVE SPOKEN.... you may now proceed with the rest of your lives...

misfit

Barring legislation and corporate policy, it's not your choice or my choice or any one else but an individual pharmacisit's choice to make as to whether or not they will fill any given prescription. I hope it never becomes a "must fill" situation, because that would strip us of our ability to use professional discretion. If a physician writes for an underdose of Ovrette, I'd like the right to refuse to fill until I have called to get an appropriate prescription. If the patient is a 37 y/o chain smoker, I'd like to be able to call and change an estrogen containing EC regimen to a levonorgestrel only one instead of filling as-is. If the patient has undiagnosed vagainal bleeding (the single labled contraindication to Plan B) I'd like to be able to send her to her physician for diagnosis instead of dispensing Plan B. I personally support women having access to EC, but I don't feel that any particular provider should be forced to participate against their will. If there is an access problem, we need to work towards adding new access points, not sit idle and begrudge exisiting practitioners for standing their moral ground.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Here's an interesting website about EC:

Not-2-Late.com

 

[misfit]

I am going to have to apologize to sdn1977 and All4MyDaughter as well as to other pharmacy people reading my posts. Sorry to all.

I didn't wish to imply that pharmacists were not allowed to use their own training and judgement when deciding to fill prescriptions. When I read your arguments, I think you all and I are agreeing on the same thing: pharmacists are NOT pill-dispensing robots; they do use their judgement and do have valid reasons to turn down filling a prescription. When it comes to compounding meds manually or recognizing med cross-reactions, allergies, abuse, etc, I absolutely realize that is within your purview to decide when to dispense.

My argument (which I did not state eloquently enough) is that I find it problematic that a pharmacist would be willing to (in the normal course of business) dispense all manner of medications legally prescribed (including ED drugs), but when it comes to contraception, would flat out say NO as a class. Or, worse, they would be happy to give it out to a married woman, but not a young single student (my argument about capricious use of authority).

What I did not realize is that states and employers would defend this position of moral objection (as sdn1977 did point out). If that is so, then my hope is that a pharmacist who morally objects would make that clear to the employer and to customers of that pharmacy. Also, my hope is that they would not prevent a person from then going elsewhere to obtain contraception.

And, yes, Em1, Plan B's effectiveness rapidly diminishes as you approach the 72 hour mark after intercourse, so timely dispensing of these drugs is key. That is where I can see someone causing a young woman trouble when they morally object to filling these prescriptions.

misfit

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I am going to have to apologize to sdn1977 and All4MyDaughter as well as to other pharmacy people reading my posts. Sorry to all.

My argument (which I did not state eloquently enough) is that I find it problematic that a pharmacist would be willing to (in the normal course of business) dispense all manner of medications legally prescribed (including ED drugs), but when it comes to contraception, would flat out say NO as a class. Or, worse, they would be happy to give it out to a married woman, but not a young single student (my argument about capricious use of authority).

What I did not realize is that states and employers would defend this position of moral objection (as sdn1977 did point out). If that is so, then my hope is that a pharmacist who morally objects would make that clear to the employer and to customers of that pharmacy. Also, my hope is that they would not prevent a person from then going elsewhere to obtain contraception.

misfit

Apology appreciated, but not necessary. Thanks, though!

I don't agree with pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control, EC, etc. In fact, I think its immoral to impose one's personal beliefs on another, and I would not do that.

Lack of access to reproductive health care (of ALL kinds) is a big problem, particularly in rural areas and certain states:

There is ONE place a woman can get a legal abortion in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky also has a mandatory waiting period.

It is not easy to find Plan B, even in Louisville - which is a metropolitan area of close to one million people.

I don't know what the solution is, though.

 

[sdn1977]

I am going to have to apologize to sdn1977 and All4MyDaughter as well as to other pharmacy people reading my posts. Sorry to all.

I didn't wish to imply that pharmacists were not allowed to use their own training and judgement when deciding to fill prescriptions. When I read your arguments, I think you all and I are agreeing on the same thing: pharmacists are NOT pill-dispensing robots; they do use their judgement and do have valid reasons to turn down filling a prescription. When it comes to compounding meds manually or recognizing med cross-reactions, allergies, abuse, etc, I absolutely realize that is within your purview to decide when to dispense.

My argument (which I did not state eloquently enough) is that I find it problematic that a pharmacist would be willing to (in the normal course of business) dispense all manner of medications legally prescribed (including ED drugs), but when it comes to contraception, would flat out say NO as a class. Or, worse, they would be happy to give it out to a married woman, but not a young single student (my argument about capricious use of authority).

What I did not realize is that states and employers would defend this position of moral objection (as sdn1977 did point out). If that is so, then my hope is that a pharmacist who morally objects would make that clear to the employer and to customers of that pharmacy. Also, my hope is that they would not prevent a person from then going elsewhere to obtain contraception.

And, yes, Em1, Plan B's effectiveness rapidly diminishes as you approach the 72 hour mark after intercourse, so timely dispensing of these drugs is key. That is where I can see someone causing a young woman trouble when they morally object to filling these prescriptions.

misfit

I do thank you for your apology. The moral objection of those who choose not to dispense must be made to the employer ahead of time - and since the requirements are changing as we speak...the time is right now - like June 1, 20006 in writing. It does not have to be made to the pt, but we are obligated to provide to the pt where the drug might be located within our area. If it is not within a reasonable distance, we must provide our supervisors with that informatin and they will provide a pharmacist who does not have a moral objection to dispensing to come in to provide it (probably the supervisor him/herself). There are mechanisms being put in place to accomodate both the pts needs and the pharmacists personal moral objections.

To clarify....Plan B's effectiveness extends up to 5 days (120 hours) after unprotected intercourse. Please encourage any of your friends/relatives who might need it to google either Plan B or nottoolate.com. You can find a location near your zip code which will have a pharmacist who is authorized to provide emergency contraception. Not all states have this ability, but we do in CA.

I am only one pharmacist...but, in my practice, the demographics of the Plan B I dispense are 30-something, married women whose birth control has failed. I live very near 3 high schools and 2 universities - I hope they are providing it on those campuses because they are not getting it from me!

 

[ky_at_hopkins]

I have two ideas I'd like to share regarding issues brought up in this message thread.

1) Religious and secular views or opinions or philosophies are all fine and dandy as long as you remember one thing... they are YOUR views alone, no one else's in particular and, therefore, they are to be used to guide only YOUR decisions. The world would get along much better if people minded their own "business" instead of trying to force their particular brand of world-view upon others.
I find both religious and so-called liberal secularists guilty of this often... just watch any 24 hr news channel and their respective talking heads...

2) As far as the controversy over pharmacists who wish not to dispense birth control AT ALL or those who wish to take it upon themselves to restrict it (e.g. not giving Plan B to teens who request it), there should be no controversy... IT IS NOT THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE!!! Please refer to my argument #1 above. If they have a strong moral objection to filling such a prescription (or handing it out in OTC form), they should not be in the business of being a pharmacist. They should realize that as an allied healthcare professional, they are NOT to be in a position to hoist their personal views over patients, especially over a legally prescribed medication that is available and approved for such usage in the United States. The decision rests with the patient alone, who has sought medical treatment from a physician and been legally given a prescription to fill. My view is that refusal to fill these prescriptions amounts to an act of malpractice.

I HAVE SPOKEN.... you may now proceed with the rest of your lives...

misfit

As nice as position one sounds it is not at all consistent with the democratic nature of our society. Every law that we pass, from outlawing speeding to outlawing murder is based on the moral views of a specific group of people. It may be the case that just about everyone agrees with most of the laws that we have that place limits on the behaviors of others, but they are still examples of imposing the morality of a certain segment of the population on the other.

edit: Point already covered.

 

[ky_at_hopkins]

I'm kind of indifferent when it comes to the battle over contraception. While I may not be a vocal supporter, I'll silently root for whichever group is the last to state that the other is stupid: political history from the last thirty years leads me to believe it will be the left calling the conservatives/religious conservatives "stupid" first, but I'll wait and see.

For the record, I'm pro-life because I believe human life begins at conception. It is illegal to end the life of a human outside of a uterus and I think that life inide a uterus should have the same protections, even if it is an inconvenience to the mother.

My social conservatism is not guided by religious values, but rather a desire to see people accept responsibility for their actions. I see this less and less in my personal interactions with other people, from simple, straightforward issues to major ethical dilemmas. I think taking responsibility for one's actions build character, and I think character is the key to maintaining a strong society. Abortion, and to a significantly lesser extent contraception, provide ways out of accepting responsibility for actions and dealing with the consequences.

So I'm fine with contraception, but I wouldn't be terribly saddened to see it go.

 

[Gut Shot]

I'm kind of indifferent when it comes to the battle over contraception. While I may not be a vocal supporter, I'll silently root for whichever group is the last to state that the other is stupid: political history from the last thirty years leads me to believe it will be the left calling the conservatives/religious conservatives "stupid" first, but I'll wait and see.

For the record, I'm pro-life because I believe human life begins at conception. It is illegal to end the life of a human outside of a uterus and I think that life inide a uterus should have the same protections, even if it is an inconvenience to the mother.

My social conservatism is not guided by religious values, but rather a desire to see people accept responsibility for their actions. I see this less and less in my personal interactions with other people, from simple, straightforward issues to major ethical dilemmas. I think taking responsibility for one's actions build character, and I think character is the key to maintaining a strong society. Abortion, and to a significantly lesser extent contraception, provide ways out of accepting responsibility for actions and dealing with the consequences.

So I'm fine with contraception, but I wouldn't be terribly saddened to see it go.

Just curious if anyone else is flabbergasted by this muddle.

 

[velo]

Do you think that every OB-GYN physician should be required to provide elective abortions? After all, abortion is legal and approved for the termination of pregnancy in the United States.

Obviously no. No physician is required to do any elective procedure that they don't feel comfortable doing, or that they don't want to do, or that they just don't feel like doing. They need to refer them to a collegue, but that's the end of their obligation.

In general, you want fewer laws dictating how you should and shouldn't take care of patients. That law would be fine by you if you want broader access to abortions, but what happens when congress decides to force physicians to do something you don't suppport? Suddenly it kind of sucks to have people forcing you to do things you don't feel comfortable doing doesn't it?

 

[velo]

So I'm fine with contraception, but I wouldn't be terribly saddened to see it go.

Since I'm assuming it would offend your sense of "personal responsibility" for people to have more children then they can afford to raise, I'm going to extrapolate that your ideal society is one in which people stoically sit around, not having any sex.

Homocides are going to go through the roof....

 

[velo]

As nice as position one sounds it is not at all consistent with the democratic nature of our society. Every law that we pass, from outlawing speeding to outlawing murder is based on the moral views of a specific group of people. It may be the case that just about everyone agrees with most of the laws that we have that place limits on the behaviors of others, but they are still examples of imposing the morality of a certain segment of the population on the other.

You don't see the difference between a moral quagmire that splits the country about ~50/50 and murder? You think there's a lot of people our there who are still on the fence about murder, and we're imposing our morals by making it illegal? Furthermore you think speeding laws are about morals? Speeding is primarily about saftey and secondarily about raising money for local government...morals don't enter into it chief.

Look I'm sure this argument has been laid out somewhere in this thread but I'll just put it out there again. I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating morality. When there are true moral ambiguities, where reasonable people can legitamately disagree, and can each provide perfectly good support for their position--I don't think its the government's job to step in and take sides. Like it or not, keeping abortion legal is the most neutral position. That way the government doesn't make the decision for you, it just keeps the option open so that individuals can decide for themselves. If you pass a law making abortions illegal then you completely remove individual choice on the matter.

 

[ky_at_hopkins]

You don't see the difference between a moral quagmire that splits the country about ~50/50 and murder? You think there's a lot of people our there who are still on the fence about murder, and we're imposing our morals by making it illegal? Furthermore you think speeding laws are about morals? Speeding is primarily about saftey and secondarily about raising money for local government...morals don't enter into it chief.

Look I'm sure this argument has been laid out somewhere in this thread but I'll just put it out there again. I don't think the government should be in the business of legislating morality. When there are true moral ambiguities, where reasonable people can legitamately disagree, and can each provide perfectly good support for their position--I don't think its the government's job to step in and take sides. Like it or not, keeping abortion legal is the most neutral position. That way the government doesn't make the decision for you, it just keeps the option open so that individuals can decide for themselves. If you pass a law making abortions illegal then you completely remove individual choice on the matter.

There is no difference between the moral decision to outlaw murder and to outlaw abortion, aside from the number of people who support it. I'm certain that somewhere there is a person who does not believe murder is immoral and thinks that the rest of us are forcing our morality upon him. Unfortunately for supporters of "abortion rights", there is not a requirement in the Constitution for a unanimous vote to make laws. It is much like the way several towns in California have banned smoking in outdoor public areas. There is no health risk from someone smoking fifty feet away in a park. It is an example of a group of people who don't like something preventing other people from doing it. Is it a stupid law that I disagree with? Yes. Do the city and its voters have the right to make that law? Yes.

With regard to your second paragraph about the neutrality of pro-choice/pro-life. If abortion were made illegal it would not remove all choices that lead to a woman becoming or not becoming pregnant. There is one situation where a woman's choice does not play a role in her pregnancy: rape. We have laws outlawing rape that will hopefully drastically reduce its prevalence, but in the unfortunate event that a woman is raped I believe she should be given the opportunity to abort the pregnancy. However, there is not any combination of birth control that is one hundred percent effective. I have no problem with people having pre-marital sex as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions. In fact, I think that's a pretty good rule to follow in life. You should not make any decision if you cannot accept the most disastrous consequence that could occur. So outlawing abortion would not restrict choice, it would emphasize that that choice should occur earlier.