NYT: Anticipating Ads, Pataki Says He'll Veto Bill on Contraceptive

[DeepModem Mom]

Anticipating Ads, Pataki Says He'll Veto Bill on Contraceptive
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and AL BAKER
Published: August 1, 2005


Gov. George E. Pataki, anticipating an advertising attack by leaders of the abortion-rights movement in New York, said that he would veto a bill to make the so-called morning-after pill available without a prescription, his office said last night.

Mr. Pataki, who is considering a 2008 presidential bid, was responding to plans by Naral Pro-Choice New York to kick off a nationwide television advertising blitz against him intended to pressure him into backing the bill.

The group's planned blitz stemmed from Mr. Pataki's refusal to say whether he would support the bill approved by the State Legislature that would make the so-called morning after pill, which prevents pregnancy after sex, available to women and girls without a prescription. But when told about the imminent advertising campaign last night, the Pataki administration reacted with surprise and later said the governor would veto the measure.

Kevin C. Quinn, a spokesman for the governor. said in a statement that the governor's main objection was that the bill would not include any provisions that would prevent minors from having access to the drug. In addition, Mr. Quinn said, the governor would be willing to reconsider the measure if the Legislature crafted and passed a new bill that addressed his concerns about the drug's availability to minors, as well as "other flaws."

But that did not satisfy abortion rights activists who were counting on the governor to sign the legislation, who had a difficult time getting Republicans in the State Senate to pass the measure the first time around....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/nyregion/01pataki.html

[deadparrot]

1. ...and then the veto'll be overruled

by the NY legislature(?)

[HockeyMom]

2. passed 34-27

Doesn't look like it.

Ok, where do we write?

[deadparrot]

3. Damn. nt

[DanCa]

5. Let me know (nt)

[DanCa]

4. I liked religion better when it focused on the after life

Unless it's always been like this and like tommy I became aware this year?

[Erika]

6. Women are turning against the GOP

because of the male GOP extremist's views. Keep it up GOP males.

[marbuc]

86. There are extremist females that share these views

scary but true

[ClarkUSA]

7. Pataki's move will make NY go a deeper shade of blue in 2006

After Spitzer becomes Governor, he'll sign it.

Pataki is such a dipshit.

[stepnw1f]

29. It Turns Out That The GOP Believe Their Own Bullshit..

or are trying to put on a face that they do.

[HockeyMom]

8. I wrote to the New York Chapter of NARAL

asking them if they are starting a petition to Pataki asking him to sign this bill. It would also be a good idea, since he has "higher aspirations", if women from across the country signed this petition too. I also wrote that I would be willing to post the petition on DU.

We have to make our voices know. The Fundies DO NOT CONTROL this country.

I will post back on the New York site when I receive an answer from them.

[sabra]

9. Pataki to Veto 'Morning-After' Pill Bill

<<SNIP>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5182150,00.html

Pataki to Veto 'Morning-After' Pill Bill

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Gov. George Pataki plans to veto legislation that would allow women to buy the ``morning-after'' pill without a prescription, a decision described by abortion rights advocates as ``sheer political expediency'' to build conservative support for a 2008 presidential run.

Conservatives lauded the decision Monday as ``a plus for parents.''

Pataki disclosed his plans Sunday night through spokesman Kevin Quinn, who said the governor's primary objection was that the bill ``provides no protection whatsoever for minors.''

``If this and other flaws in the bill are addressed, and a responsible version of the bill is advanced, the governor would support it,'' Quinn said.

<</SNIP>>

[AtomicKitten]

10. Idiot

Repubs really think their moralizing is going to attract voters. They will find their extremism will only bite them in the ass. Makes Hillary's veer to the right seem downright liberal.

[getmeouttahere]

11. The U.S. continues to move backward...

while most of the rest of the world moves forward on issues like this.

[oostevo]

12. I don't get it ...

I'm all for debate. I respect the opinions of the other side of the abortion controversy. And even though I don't agree with them, I still like to hear the ideas and positions they present.

But that just doesn't make sense.
"A plus for parents" ... what the hell? That's the best they could do? They could have at least said something along the lines of "reduces abortions" or "reduces unborn child deaths" (even though those aren't technically true).

[Tesha]

13. *NEVER* vote for Republicans! They will all screw you in the end! (NT)

[wildwww2]

64. Yes they will. With an elephants penis and no vaseline.

Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[brentspeak]

14. Pataki thinks he's presidential material

But he'll just have to settle for some lucrative D.C. lobbying job.

[rocktivity]

15. Is it safe to take the pill when you think you're pregnant but aren't?

I think that people taking it superfluously, especially teenagers, IS something to worry about.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Demit]

16. If you are pregnant, the pill would not work anyway.

It is not an abortifacent. Its purpose is to prevent the egg from being fertilized.

[getmeouttahere]

17. That's right, good clarification

[anitar1]

58. But it is now referred to as the Abortion pill in all the papers. n/t

[marbuc]

89. Effective use of language

to demonize the product, and build opposition. Similar to the use of "death tax" to describe the Estate Tax.

[Book Lover]

108. Their semantic inaccuracy should not be repeated here

The morning-after pill acts to prevent fertilization of the egg. Because you aren't pregnant until after a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining, no abortion (or miscarriage for that matter)occurs if the egg fails to implant. Nothing that happens during the "limbo" time between fertilization and implantation can be construed as causing an abortion because there is as yet no pregnancy.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

19. Yes it is safe.

It is just an extremely high dose of the regular birth control pill.

[northzax]

21. which, of course, you can't get without a scrip

for good reason, since there are risks associated with taking any type of hormonal medication. I think it should be readily avaliable, but with a prescription. Sorry.

[TammyLittlenut]

31. but isn't the point of this pill that you need to take it right away?

You have a lapse in judgement on Saturday night with Mr. X - the next morning you realize what you've done and you take this pill to prevent pregnancy. How can you get a prescription that quickly?

[RatRacer]

33. Call your OB/GYN? -eom

nt

[gkhouston]

34. on a weekend?

because the condom broke? And you're expecting near-instantaneous response?

:rofl:

[TammyLittlenut]

35. just ring up your doctor on a sunday morning?

Can you do that? Doesn't seem very nice. It should also be noted that a doctor doesn't HAVE to prescribe anything, so he/she could deny the request.

It should be available for a woman to purchase OTC. Period.

This reminds me of the parental consent argument. I don't know how many Dem men I've heard say, "well, what's the big deal about a girl having to ask her parents?" The big deal is it's HER body, not her parents'. And it's HER body, not her doctor's.

[RatRacer]

36. If the FDA hasn't seen fit to approve it for OTC use

Why should that power be granted by a state legislature? I mean, I think it should be available, just not OTC.

[nonpareil]

125. The scientists at the FDA wanted to approve it

Based on the scientific evidence Plan B should have been approved by the FDA for OTC use long ago. Earlier this year the FDA advisers voted overwhelmingly to approve it. It was Bush's political hacks who blocked it. Remember Dr David Hager, the OB-Gyn incapable of finding a vagina, who abused and anally raped his former wife? He was one of the votes against approving it for OTC status.

[northzax]

37. but under that logic

prescriptions should be abolished across the board. After all, it's my body, if I can't sleep tonight, I should be able to trundle down to the pharmacy and get me some ambien, or some valium to get to sleep, right? it's not my doctor's body, it's mine.

[K-W]

48. ignore mispost

[northzax]

70. Every commercially avalaible MAP

has a full 72 hour window, three full days (unless it's a friday on a holiday weekend, and then you can go to a community heath clinic and see a doctor) you have time. And there is no greater efficacy in taking it an hour after sex or 60 hours after sex.

[K-W]

50. Then why do doctors support making it otc?

Perhaps you should have considered the fact that taking a hormone treatment once is a bit different than taking it every day indeffinately. Equating long term birth control with the morning after pill is a bit misguided.

[northzax]

53. Has the AMA actually said this?

or are they a few doctors who support it? I assume you have a link to support this comment?

[K-W]

55. here

I dont know where you get off asking for a link since you provided no evidence for your claim of dangerous side effects, but here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/12/16/morning.after.pill/

[northzax]

61. the side effects?

read the side of the package, sometime, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals will be happy to tell you about the potential side effects.

everything you put into your body has a side effect.

and you'd think there'd be a quote in that article from someone besides the head of Barr, the US's largest maker of generic pharmaceuticals. Why not ask ExxonMobil about global warming?

but since you want a link... Common side effects include nausea, vomiting, lower abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, breast tenderness, and menstrual changes. Approximately 50% of women who use an estrogen/progestin morning after pill get nauseated and 20% vomit. The side effects are less in the progestin-only morning after pill.

The morning after pill should not be used by women who are pregnant, by woman with undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, or by women with an allergy to the product. http://womensissues.about.com/cs/reproductive/a/blmorningafter.htm

and...

What are the side effects?
The most common side effect is nausea, even vomiting sometimes. Other equally temporary, but less frequent side effects include headache, breast tenderness, and dizziness.

Because the morning after pill is high-dose female hormones, those women should not take the birth control pill should also not take the morning after pill. This is primarily women with a history of stroke, blood clots, or high blood pressure. http://www.ku.edu/~shs/pill.shtml

and...http://www.nyabortion.com/birthcontrol/themorningpill.shtml#5


What are the most common side effects of the Morning-after Pill?
irregular bleeding


Women using the morning-after pill may experience a change in their next period. It may come early, on time, or be late. Most women will get their period 7 to 9 days after treatment. If your period has not occurred by 21 days after treatment, you should check this out with a pregnancy test.
nausea


Half of women using this method will experience nausea and some will have vomiting. Take the morning-after pill with food to minimize this side effect. When vomiting occurs due to the morning-after pill it probably indicates that enough hormone has reached the blood stream to have its desired effect. There is no need to repeat the dose.
ectopic pregnancy
If the morning-after pill fails to prevent pregnancy, there is an increased chance it is a tubal pregnancy.
other


Common side effects include breast tenderness, fatigue, headache, abdominal pain, and dizziness. Since the morning-after pill is a short-term treatment, these symptoms should resolve shortly after you complete the two doses.

[K-W]

62. I meant the side effects that justify your position.

The side effects you list are not enough for doctors to conclude it is unsafe over the counter, which is why they concluded it was safe for over the counter.

Then again this is silly, because you arent qualified to make such judgements.

[northzax]

63. but you are? can I get your AMA number?

or are you allowing politics to intervene in medical decisions? I'm not a medical doctor, but the ones I know, including the vascular surgeon I had lunch with, don't think single doses of prescription medication should be made avaliable without a prescription. Since that happens to be the FDA's position, and I cannot find, on MedLine, a peer reviewed study showing that this particular pill should be an exception to the rules, I'm going with that position. Go to a CHC, go to an Urgent Care Center. Call your doctor, any OB/GYN worth their salt has a emergency service, you have 48 hours, after all.

Can you explain why this particular medication should be avaliable for one time use without a scrip but not others? simply for convenience sake?

Let me put it plainly. no legislature or court should restrict access to a medical treatment that the FDA and the AMA, the experts, decide should be avaliable. On the flip side, the same legislatures and courts should not expand medical procedures beyond what the FDA and the AMA decide is acceptable and safe.

[Justitia]

65. Remember back when you needed a scrip for Monistat? What a pain

in the ass that was! The last thing I felt like doing when I had a raging yeast infection was waiting a week for a doc appt and driving to the pharmacy, etc, etc. If you haven't had one, they are miserable.

Or the numbing agent for UTIs??? Agony!

Or allergy medicine?

All these have changed and are now available OTC w/out a prescription to the infinite relief of women everywhere.

[northzax]

66. and it was the FDA that removed Monistat

from the ranks of prescription drugs, not the state legislature. I mean have you ever met a state legislator? you want those people deciding what kind of medical care you can get when?

[K-W]

68. Why do you think the FDA is more able than a legislature?

You seem to be under the incredibally flawed impresssion that the FDA is some kind of medical authority.

It isnt, it relies on medical proffessionals for scientific opinions, and in this case the proffesionals dont agree with the FDA.

[northzax]

72. because that's how the system works

it's called federalism. prescription drugs are regulated by the federal government. not the states.

[K-W]

74. Obviously you are wrong.

Obviously states can regulate perscription drugs or this law wouldnt have passed.

[northzax]

77. ha!

that was a good one, thanks for the laugh. I apologise for my above sarcasm, I thought I was dealing with someone who understood how the US and state governments actually work. my bad.

remember http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html">Griswold v. Connecticut? the case that said States cannot restrict access to preventative birth control? see, the State passed a law, and the Supreme Court? those guys in black robes in Washington? told them they couldn't have that law. But since the state legislature passed it, I guess you'd be ok with it? damn, did you take a US government class?

[K-W]

98. Your logic is the funniest thing here.

"those guys in black robes in Washington? told them they couldn't have that law. But since the state legislature passed it, I guess you'd be ok with it? damn, did you take a US government class?"

At no point did I say that every law passed by a legislature was constitutional. You invented that in your head. All I said was that the fact that the legislature passed this law shows that it is possible for them to do so and would be odd if it were as blatently unconstitutional as you seem to be claiming it is. If you want to find me precedent showing the law is unconstitutional go ahead. But since this law has nothing to do with restricting access to prevenatitive birth control Griswold v CT wont cut it.

[Justitia]

69. I think there are perfectly safe medicines that get held back from

easy access to women because of ideology or pharmaceutical profits.

And this definitely qualifies.

[northzax]

73. the pharmas want this one

Barr Pharmaceuticals, the generics giant, wants this badly. The only private-label Pill is from Wyeth, which is much lower in hormones and unlikely to be used as emergency contraception.

no one has made the arguement why the pill should be unique in being avaliable for one time use OTC and require a scrip for preventative, regular use. no other pill, medication or device requires this.

[Justitia]

76. My personal opinion is that as safe as BC pills are, they should

be OTC at all times, like lots of other meds have eventually been classified.

However, since we are talking about SEX, WOMEN and $$$, that will never happen.

Not to mention, keeping women coming in for their annual exams to get the pill, is a long-known method of gatekeeping by doctors.

So, I agree - make it OTC at all times.
But, we both know that won't happen.

[northzax]

81. that is a perfectly logical position

and, by the way, I can't see a reason that the MaP is not avaliable OTC, but I don't think it should be the decision of a state legislature.

[Justitia]

83. and I agree w/you. Frankly, I don't think politicians should practice

medicine - ever.

[northzax]

84. especially that Frist fellow {nt}

[K-W]

67. I never claimed I was. You are the one rendering judgements.

As I have already stated I am merely supporting the scientists who reccommended it be over the counter. You are the one who thinks you know better than them.

"or are you allowing politics to intervene in medical decisions?"

No that is what the FDA did, and you apparently support them in it.

"I'm not a medical doctor, but the ones I know, including the vascular surgeon I had lunch with, don't think single doses of prescription medication should be made avaliable without a prescription. "

You clearly dont know much about science if you think your vascular surgeon friends opinion counts as valid evidence.

"Since that happens to be the FDA's position,"
Yes that is the position of the political appointees in the FDA, but not the doctors they rely on for expert opinion. Odd that above you accuse me of favoring politics over science.

"Can you explain why this particular medication should be avaliable for one time use without a scrip but not others? simply for convenience sake? "

Are you joking? Plenty of medications are available over the counter.

[northzax]

71. we live in a federal system

pharmaceuticals are regulated federally, not on a state by state basis. There should be no difference in the medication avaliable in New York or Mississippi. I don't want to legitimize the actions of state legislatures making medical decisions for people in their states. Because it can easily go both ways. You are saying that the New York legislature, an esteemed body, can take the opinion of a few doctors on an FDA panel, and change avaliability to a prescription drug. What happens when Kansas takes the opinion of a few doctors and makes Condoms a prescription item? It's absurd, but not beyond the reach of those nutcases. And you would not have a leg to stand on. Are you certain you want to cede that power to the States? it goes both ways, you know.

Of course there are many pharmaceuticals availiable OTC, but can you name one that is avaliable OTC for single, emergency, use, but requires a scrip for regular preventative use? There are none, as far as I know.

OK, I promise not to ask the opinion of medical researchers on medical research. CNN is a much better source.

[K-W]

75. Now you are just bepurely spinning.

Federalism? Right. Obviously this isnt the constitutional crisis you paint it to be.

Of course there are many pharmaceuticals availiable OTC, but can you name one that is avaliable OTC for single, emergency, use, but requires a scrip for regular preventative use? There are none, as far as I know.

So now you think that to be made over the counter a drug must resemble a current over the counter drug? Where are you coming up with this crap?

OK, I promise not to ask the opinion of medical researchers on medical research. CNN is a much better source.

You didnt ask a medical researcher for the scientific facts, you asked a surgeon you know for his personal opinion. And CNN was only my source for the information, the information came from an FDA panel. Are you even reading what you respond to?

[northzax]

78. well, I happen to know the surgeon

because we work together on medical research. so I asked his opinion. This is what we do.

yes or no. states should be able to regulate medical care inside the state beyond and above what is allowed by the Federal Government? Yes or no?

If you say 'yes' then you cannot complain when Kansas outlaws abortion. sorry, you can't have it both ways.

if you say no, then the MaP remains prescription. make your choice.

[Justitia]

80. Um, FYI - states DO individually regulate access to abortion. -eom

[northzax]

82. and they shouldn't

that's my point.

[Justitia]

85. Yes, access to medical care should be uniform and consistent.

So where is it that we are all in disagreement about anything?

[northzax]

87. I can't find a place, looking back at it

I think I was unclear on a point and you made me clarify it, thanks.

[Justitia]

88. LOL - ok, that's funny - "Now, I've gone and lost my place in this

argument, which side was I on?" Sounds like my husband and I sometimes....

[K-W]

99. You are making bogus arguments.

I dont care how you know the surgeon. One vascular surgeon's opinion on birth control doesnt carry much water.

You seem to be quite confused. The reason Kansas cant outlaw abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with states ability to regulate medical care. It has to do with the precedent that regulating abortion is violating privacy. So your entire argument based on this is bogus.

[northzax]

130. and your naive faith

that state legislatures can only do the right thing is absurd. At no time has the Court allowed states to regulate medical care to a looser standard than the federal government. Just because the new york legislature thinks it can, doesn't mean it actually can.

If I gave you a letter signed by every Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, you still wouldn't agree, for you it's a matter of faith, which is fine. For me it's a matter of safety and access to medical care for the greatest number of people, which can best be served by not allowing State legislatures to regulate medical care to a different standard than the Federal Government. You should not be able to obtain a procedure in one state that is illegal in another state, you should not be able to obtain medication in one state that is illegal in every other state. Sorry, that's not how the system works best. It may well be that MaP is the one exception to 50 years of medical regulation in the US, that's fine, but the place to address it is on the Federal level, not the State level. The same goes, by the way, for medicinal marijuana, it's not a state issue.

By the way, Roe and Griswold were both privacy rulings, not medical ones, as you know. Are you saying that abortion and EC are somehow fundamentally different than any other type of medical procedure/pharmeceutical? that they should be treated differently somehow? I don't agree with that, they shouldn't be special, or get special attention, to do so is to make them a powerful tool for the wingnuts. abortion is a medical procedure, I don't want state legislatures regulating that (and while they can't ban it, that can make it almost impossible to perform) any more than I want them making access to heart surgery more difficult.

I'm done here, you cannot change faith with reason.

[RatRacer]

79. Just on one point...

K-W: So now you think that to be made over the counter a drug must resemble a current over the counter drug? Where are you coming up with this crap?

I don't think that was the argument. It's that no drugs currently available only as prescription are ALSO available as a one time dose OTC with no change in dosage strength. A drug is either Rx only, or it's OTC, or it's OTC at a much lower dosage while the stronger version is still Rx only. Motrin for instance comes in 800mg horse pellets with a script. But if you want the OTC version (Motrin IB), you get pills that are 200mg each.

[K-W]

100. You are making the exact same bogus argument.

It doesnt matter whether another drug is similar in any fashion. That has no relevance to whether it should be over the counter or not.

[RatRacer]

103. Why doesn't it?

I think it is significant that no other prescription drug on the market is available in Rx strength as some kind of one-dose OTC thing. The question is, if you can have it OTC for a single (actually, double since you take one dose immediately and another 12 hrs later) dose, why have it as an Rx at all? It can't be concern over long term effects...Prilosec OTC says to only take it for 14 days then you are supposed to wait at least 4 months before using it again.

[sonicx]

104. ECs need to be taken as soon as possible

And for most people, there is no safety issue in taking them, so there is no reason why it can't be the exception to the 'rule.'

[K-W]

105. It just doesnt.

There is no rational reason that a drug need to in any way resemble other over the counter drugs. Therefore the fact that there is no other drug that acts like this drug does has no bearing on its over the counter status.

Heres a hint btw, Birth Control is taken every day for years on end. Emergency contreceptives are taken only during emergencies.

[LeftyMom]

26. it's just a higher than normal dose of birth control pills

Of course it's safe to take if you aren't pregnant, unless you're in a high risk group that can't take the pill and I'm sure all the counterindications are spelled out on the pkg.

[HockeyMom]

49. You take birth control pills when you AREN'T PREGNANT, don't you?

This is just a higher dosage of birth control pills. Probably the same dosage that we older women took every day years ago.

[RatRacer]

18. Am I the only one that agrees with him?

I'm not arguing about the aim of the bill, just the means. I'm not comfortable with putting birth control pills out there without a prescription. It just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. What am I missing?

[ret5hd]

20. a vagina?

[Kraklen]

22. lol

[Kraklen]

23. A medical degree.

[RatRacer]

24. So, do you have any actual answers?

Anyone can be a smartass. The question is serious. These drugs are of enough concern that it currently requires a prescription to use them everyday as birth control. What makes it any different?

Like I said, I understand why it's wanted, but the means (allowing a prescription drug to be made over the counter by legislative action) doesn't seem safe to me.

[Kraklen]

25. I'll leave that up to the experts.

The FDA is a lot more qualified than you or me or Governor Dipshit to determine whether or not morning after pills should be over that counter.

[RatRacer]

28. Well, that's my point

Did the FDA approved the morning after pill for over the counter use or did the NY state legislature take it upon themselves to do it?

[RatRacer]

30. Answered my own question

from the article:

"The federal Food and Drug Administration has declined to allow the pill to be sold over the counter, even though two of its advisory committees voted in 2003 that it should be. In Illinois, after some pharmacists balked at dispensing the pills to women with prescriptions, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich issued an order requiring them to do so."

So, the FDA has still not allowed it to be sold over the counter. How is it that the NY legislature could override that decision?"

[Kraklen]

38. Ah, but the advisory committees said it should be approved.

The politics of the morning after pill overrode the science.

[RatRacer]

39. That's true

But I still have a hard time with a legislative body overriding what the FDA has said. And I also don't like the idea of minors being able to purchase a drug like this themselves. That's just not a prudent course of action to me.

I'd rather err on the side of caution than ramrod something through on a political basis.

[Justitia]

40. The FDA is the POLITICAL body, the advisory boards are the docs.

And FYI - minors today, right now, can get ongoing birth control prescriptions without parental permission.

This is the exact same medication in a different dosage given as a one-time dose.

[RatRacer]

41. Well, having a doctor give them a prescription is one thing

...but I'm not entirely comfortable with a minor being able to just purchase this OTC with neither a doctor NOR a parent's involvement.

[Justitia]

42. Why? I get the impression that you are not familiar w/BC pills.

It sounds more like you are simply concerned about curbing teenage sexuality and I promise you, denying them birth control won't make it better.

Would you rather they had unprotected sex and got pregnant?
Because that is the alternative.
They WILL have sex - the question becomes "will they get pregnant from it?"

[RatRacer]

44. No, I'd rather

...they either go buy condoms or, prior to becoming sexually active, get on birth control after consulting with a doctor and getting a prescription. Frankly, if one isn't mature enough to think ahead and at least purchase condoms or get birth control, I'm not sure they are mature enough to be sexually active anyway.

[Justitia]

46. Seriously, what if the condom breaks? I'm familiar w/that scenario

and it was terrifying waiting around to see what happens.

You are also assuming that much planning is done before having sex and I don't know that either teenagers OR adults always plan to have sex (esp far enough out to schedule doc visits and get prescriptions filled).

All I'm saying is that if sex has already occurred, and for whatever reason pre-scheduled birth control is insufficient or non-existent, shouldn't we make available a very safe and proven method for preventing an unplanned pregnancy?

[Justitia]

43. oh, forgot to ask: what about grown women - like me? -eom

[RatRacer]

45. I'm still loathe to go against the FDA

...but it wouldn't be a big deal if it did get approved. I'm still not sure why a grown woman who should know better is having unprotected sex or having sex without birth control. I mean, I hate to be all harsh, but something isn't computing to me.

[Justitia]

47. As a grown woman, I have had other methods fail. I would have loved

to have had another option instead of "wait and see" if I was becoming a parent.

[RatRacer]

52. If you were sexually active

and you're willing to take the morning after pill, why would you only rely on a condom for instance. Wouldn't you, knowing you're going to be sexually active, just get on the pill?

Forgive me if these questions seem rather basic. I'm just trying to understand why the OTC thing is so important in your situation.

[Justitia]

56. I had uterine fibroids. My doc wanted me to stop the pill for a while

to see if it had any effect on shrinking the fibroids over some months.

I was married at this time, BTW.

My doc fitted me for a diaphragm. While I was waiting for the diaphragm, we used condoms and one actually broke. On top of that about a month later after I rec'd my diaphragm, it came out during sex because it had been improperly fitted.

We were terrified during this time and waiting was excruciating.
I would have loved to had the option of a one-time dose of prevention.

[RatRacer]

59. That's a good point then

Thanks for answering and not attacking. I genuinely am seeking to understand this.

I guess making it available for non-minors would be fine, though I'd still make it come from a trained pharmacist. I'd still prefer a minor to talk to a doctor first.

[Justitia]

60. Of course. And I think we would all like minors to be under the

constant care of a doctor, if possible.

I just recognize that there will be times when it's not an option, for whatever reason, and if we can prevent even one unplanned pregnancy if we have the means, we have the duty to women, children, men & society at large to do so.

[Justitia]

27. It's a one time dosage and completely safe. The rest is propaganda. -eom

[LeftyMom]

32. It's short term

The pill is prescripton for long term use because some groups shouldn't use it due to high risk. It's also one of the better ways to get women to come in for thier annual exam.

[K-W]

51. Most DU'rs dont take the christian right position on this issue.

Most DU'rs agree with medical proffessionals that the morning after pill is safe for over the counter and should be made over the counter.

Only you and one other poster seem to agree with the right that we should ignore science and keep this perscription only.

[RatRacer]

54. Actually, the Christian Right...

...would like to see it banned because they think it's an abortifacient. I don't and don't want it to be banned. I'm just arguing a more cautious approach, especially as it pertains to minors.

[K-W]

57. No, the right would like to ban it, but knows it cant.

So instead they block it from being sold over the counter hiding behind a "cautious approach" even though science doesnt support them.

[Pystoff]

90. Don't feel so alone

I happen to agree with you but I think it is more of an issue of personal responsibility.

Push button world with push button solutions to push button thinking.

[sonicx]

92. "personal responsibility"

so if a women gets raped, it's her fault, huh?

If a couple uses a condom or non-oral contraceptive and for whatever reason it breaks/fails, it's their fault, huh?

[Pystoff]

107. Yep personal responsibility

No if a woman gets raped that's a definate exception and a hospital where she'd most likely be afterward would have prescription drugs on hand since it IS a hospital correct? Don't try to pigenhole my view with over the top replies it's a stretch to make and a rediculious attempt to shut me down with such a sick accusation.

Condoms and non-oral contraceptives have a failure rate printed on the package and has a luck factor involved....which backs up my rolling the dice argument.

I'm not saying don't enjoy yourselves but kids don't think they only act and that's what we were discussing not adlut behavior.

Now before you think I am naieve and don't think we should have these drugs nah uh we have them and that's that issue off the table they are here to stay nor do I mind them exsisting.

[sonicx]

109. "drugs on hand since it IS a hospital correct?"

Many women who are raped don't report it for various reasons. I know you're smart enough to know that.

"which backs up my rolling the dice argument"

Actually, it doesn't back up anything. You are saying because something has risk, there shouldn't be a safety net, which is something i'd expect OxyRush to say. Also, studies have shown that making ECs availiable OTC doesn't increase "unsafe" sex habits. Most other developed countries have EC over the counter (and comprehensive sex ed for that matter), but most have lower teen prenancy and sex rates (and abortion rates for everyone) than the US.

"I'm not saying don't enjoy yourselves but kids don't think they only act and that's what we were discussing not adlut behavior."

I don't understand what the hell you just said, but i'm sure you're smart enough to know that adults take ECs too and that MARRIED ADULTS have contraceptive failures.

I imagine you support putting drug users in jail and foregoing any kind of treatment. After all, "they should have know better." :eye: Probably anti-choice for abortion too.

[Pystoff]

120. Sorry but we don't all think alike

I notice you jump to the most sensative examples you could come up with and then top it with a comparision to Rush Windbag...cute real cute. First I'll apologize for not following your personal dogma....nope scratch that I am an idividual.

Yes women don't report rapes. Do they also not go to the hosipital to make sure they haven't been infected with a disease? Or maybe for physical pain? Women go to the hospital all the time after rapes and don't report them and hospital won't turn them away because they don't report a crime "you're smart enough to know that." And it would be smart to get medical help after something like that right?

"You are saying because something has risk, there shouldn't be a safety net, which is something i'd expect OxyRush to say."
Oh yes the comparision to RushWindbag now your cookin with cowflop. I expected a conversation not flame throwing because I don't think just as you do...nor do many ppl that vote the same way as you. This isn't politcal here I am a democrat I just think as an individual and subject by subject I have different thoughts. I guess that makes me right wing huh? No it doesn't. And btw PLENTY of things have risk and don't have safety nets that are ALOT more dangerous than sex. Other countries actually teach real sex ed to kids so they don't screw around like american kids and not use condoms or other contriception which is very common here as opposed to there so of course their abortion and teen pregnancy rates are better (personal responsibility and maturity and much more left wing there to boot). That and the way sex is used to sell anything and everything here would make Europeans blush just turn on Fox network.

"I imagine you support putting drug users in jail and foregoing any kind of treatment. After all, "they should have know better." :eye: Probably anti-choice for abortion too."
Wow and a dual cherry on top for the ender there you outdid yourself here. Infact mind reader I don't think drug users should go to jail at all. Drug sellers should go to jail users should get ticketed so we have jail space to keep real criminals in jail where they belong for real sentences and decriminalize marijuana.
As far as abortion I really don't even care about it at all. Genie is out of the bottle so it's going to be legal and even if Roe v Wade is overturned it will become a state issue again and will be legal somewhere. I'm male and I don't even think I should get the right to argue this issue considering I can't be pregnant and shouldn't make choices for womens health issues.

[sonicx]

122. "I notice you jump to the most sensative examples you could come up with"

They are real life issues and do happen. They are cases where the MAP is most needed.

"And it would be smart to get medical help after something like that right?"

Yes it would be, but there are still women that for whatever reason *still wouldn't even go to a hospital.* What's the solution, punish them? Call them stupid?

"And btw PLENTY of things have risk and don't have safety nets that are ALOT more dangerous than sex"

Big deal, sex is one of the things we do have nets for. I don't want to take them away.

"I'm male and I don't even think I should get the right to argue this issue considering I can't be pregnant and shouldn't make choices for womens health issues."

Good! Then you agree that the MAP should be OTC and we let women choose for themselves whether or not they need it!

[K-W]

101. Do you have anything other than meaningless right wing slogans

to back up your opinion?

[Pystoff]

112. Oh right wing am I?

Scuse me here for a second I didn't know you were the foremost political analyst on DU. I swear some ppl are politcal snobs in this world if you don't follow along like a good puppy and stay in line EXACTLY with the dogma. I am an indiviual a Democrat and DAMN proud of it!

Personal responsibility isn't right wing or left wing it's what it is.

Everthing in life isn't a political pissing contest or an angle to be played and I take offense to your labeling me as right wing slogan pitch person. I have not ever voted for or even considered voting for a Pug so you can block my comments as I've asked you to do once before on a previous thread.

[sonicx]

114. If "Personal responsibility" means cutting holes in social safety nets

than yes, it is right wing.

Restricting *safe* products that exercise reproductive rights in the name of "Personal Responsibility" is right wing.

[Pystoff]

121. So by your singular wisdom

I am right wing because of one issue. I am Rush Limpballs because I don't think this single drug should be sold over the counter.

I never said it wasn't safe nor did I EVER promote denying anyone their reproductive rights. You are going way over the top in your effort here and implying something to me I haven't promoted.

I only said I didn't think it should be sold over the counter you went rabid political about it.

[sonicx]

124. you are not RW, just the stance.

There is no reason to create barriers to getting the MAP. Studies have shown that it does not increase unsafe sex habits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html

[K-W]

115. I never said you were right wing. So what are you talking about?

You posted right wing slogans. That is just a matter of fact. "Personal responsibility" and complaining about the "pushbutton" nature of the solution are two ideas commonly found on the social right. I drew no conclusion about your political leanings. I was mainly focused on the fact that the phrases are essentially meaningless, not that they were right wing.

I never asked that you stay in line with any dogma.

Personal responsibility is a right wing slogan whether you like it or not. And yes it is what it is, a phrase that has no meaning out of context.

Political pissing contest? Angle? Lableling you? I did no such thing. I pointed out, accurately, that you used some right wing slogans without any actual argument for your position. Trust me, I am fully aware that plenty of non-republicans sound like republicans on some issues. That doesnt even neccessarily make them wrong.

[Pystoff]

123. Got news for you

Those sayings aren't the right wing's property.

" I drew no conclusion about your political leanings." Funny considering what you said...selective memory?

Well excuse me but personal irresposibility must be freakin huge on the left? Funny I don't see it and I think we can use that phrase as well and not be labeled by our own for using it if we feel it fits the subject. Quick fixes to ones own taking chances are what I was saying with those phrases and those phrases fit that quite well if you'd look past the politcal attachments to language.

And to be honest this particualr issue I am to a degree classic conservative...get that correct and read it close. Classic conservative on CERTAIN issues....Southern Populist Democrat to the core.

[sonicx]

126. "Quick fixes to ones own taking chances"

Saying things like that are why i perceived you as anti-choice. You could just as easily say the same thing about someone who wanted an abortion or drug abusers. Or people who are whatever reason lose most of their money and need financial assistance.

[Pystoff]

127. Quick fix with a drawback maybe?

Quick fixes to unprotected sex which the wash. post article showed was the case. Get some freakin contraceptives that are plentiful and maybe cut down on the STD rate which also was shown in that same article. So yes a quick fix but STD rate to go with it.....sounds like one night stands. Can't defend one night stands because that isn't very freakin responsible considering thats where that STD problem in the article probably came from eh?

So ok sure maybe we need more STD's considering in this country ppl are ignorant about safe sex for the mostpart.

Btw if you aren't female your earlier comment about me maybe changing my stance since I didn't think it my place to involve myself in womens reproduction rights makes your opinions null and void as well. But when it comes to unprotected sex being made easier and the spread of STD's it becomes a human issue. See all these issues are not the same as abortion they each have nuances and this is a BIG nuance. Re-read that article and stop at the STD rate and think before lumping things into a big pro-abortion being attached to reproductive rights pile and make it a national health issue not a politcal one. And then push for better sex ed in schools so maybe this stuff gets adressed like they do in Europe then maybe it would be ok to sell this OTC.

[sonicx]

128. the WP article said STD rates were the same for women who got the MAP

over the counter vs prescription vs having it at home, but that's not even the issue we are talking about. We are talking about reproductive rights. Stay on subject.

You are right, we do need comprehensive sex ed like in Europe, and we also need OTC MAP like in many European countries too. There are several ways we can be more like Europe at the same time.

[Pystoff]

129. You missed my point

The fact that the STD rate was that high period is part of this issue. The sex ed taught in this country is so damn bad making the pill or MAP OTC would probably make STD's even higher here. Ppl in this country are like children about sex compared to Europeans so this is right on subject.

[marbuc]

95. It is my understanding that "the pill" is available only by perscription

Am I wrong? If not, why should the MaP be any different, especially considering the concentrated dosage?

[sonicx]

97. Because it's SAFE and needs to be taken quickly

if you have to wait for a doctor for a scip, it may be too late.

[K-W]

102. Gee I dunno, maybe one time use versus repeated indefinate use? eom

[marbuc]

110. Not buying this logic

there are many substances that are fine at low levels, but fatal at concentrated levels. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'd rather have too many studies than not enough.

[sonicx]

111. It is NOT the case here, so i'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

"I'd rather have too many studies than not enough"

MAPs have been studied for decades and have been used by millions of women. They are safe, period.

[marbuc]

116. I brought it up because

you stated MaP should be available OTC while the "pill" is not, because it is administered in a single dose. This claim alone is not nearly enough to convince me, because the MaP has a much higher concentration. If you tell me to take an arsenic pill should I do it? I ingest low levels of arsenic every day right? One pill cannot be worse than that?

I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I am definitely uncomfortable with the idea of making a substance available OTC while weaker versions are controlled.

[sonicx]

117. If you don't trust the decade of studies and millions of women who have...

used the MAP (over the counter in most countries today), what will convince you?

You can bring up as many other pill-types as you want, that still does not change the fact that the MAP is safe.

[marbuc]

118. Of course it is safe

But does this mean it should be dispensed like pez? Not necessarily.

Edit: I'll be more comfortable when the FDA determines it to be safe to offer OTC.

[sonicx]

119. the FDA DID determine it to be safe to offer OTC!

their panel of scientists ALREADY DID THAT. the reason it hasn't been approved to actually go over the counter is because of RW ideologs in FDA.

BTW, "dispensed like pez" is a scare tactic. MAPs are used has *last resorts*. They are expensive and have lower success rates, so people are incouraged not to rely on them over other methods if possible (sometimes it is not).

EDIT:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-05-06-fda-morning-after_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — Women's groups are accusing the Bush administration of putting politics before science in rejecting over-the-counter sales of morning-after birth control, even as the agency stressed Friday that it will reconsider that decision if given more data.

The FDA cited concern about young teenagers' use of emergency contraception without a doctor's guidance — overruling the agency's own scientific advisers, who had overwhelmingly backed easier access as a safe way to prevent thousands of abortions.

And:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48377-2005Jan4.html

Providing women with easy access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B did not lead them to engage in more risky sexual behavior, a study of more than 2,000 California women has concluded.

The study did find that women given a supply to keep at home were more than 1 1/2 times as likely to use the drug after unprotected sex as those who had to pick it up at a clinic or pharmacy. The findings led the study authors to conclude that easy access to Plan B, also called the morning-after pill, could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies while posing no apparent risk to women.

snip

The new study, being published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, supports the position taken by much of the FDA review staff and 23 of 27 members of the FDA advisory panel that the drug could be safely and properly used without a prescription.

[K-W]

113. This isnt one of those substances. We have enough studies.

Not only have the studies been done. The drug has been available over the counter so we have real world data to boot. This drug passes the scientific muster for over the counter, that is why the scientists have reccomended the FDA make it so.

[sonicx]

91. This is the silliest thing in the world

Nearly every developed nation has this pill available OTC, yet the oh-so-wise US needs "more research." :eyes:

[RatRacer]

94. Here's a list

Emergency contraception is available without prescription in the following 41 countries: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Cameroon, Canada, China, Congo, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Conakry, Iceland, India, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Developed nations without it: Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea...not an insignificant list.

[sonicx]

96. And?

There is no need for "more research." It is safe.

BTW, it's no surprise that Japan's on that list since they only legalized the REGULAR PILL a couple years ago.

Spain is likely to change soon, with the new leftist government. They were in the hands of far right for a while. Italy is in the hand of the far right too, but that will probably change in the next election.

Russia? Interesting, since they have one of the highest abortion rates in the world. They could use some contraceptives.

[Miss Chybil]

93. Why does he want minors to have babies?

When he can keep kids from having sex, that should be when he can keep them from having contraceptives.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

106. I HATE hate HATE HATE this man

I'm so fucking pissed off that just because little Pataki wants to run for president, he's doing all this shit. I'm a female and I fucking have a right to get this emergency contraceptive (and no, i'm not planning on using that right, but it's good to have it!) and I'll be damned if I let George Pataki ruin it for me.

:grr:

[noonwitch]

131. It should be a prescription drug, and a doctor should examine a woman

before giving it to her. It is a strong drug that has some serious potential complications. I don't care what the political arguments are, I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies pushing this, all they want is to make money. I don't necessarily trust the right-to-lifers, as their agenda is obvious, but I don't look at this as an abortion argument, I look at it as a women's health issue.
The morning after pill can cause excessive bleeding and other complications. A doctor needs to examine a woman to make sure that she is not at a particular risk before a woman takes this drug.

[K-W]

133. You are simply wrong. The science does not agree with you. EOM

[SeanQuinn]

132. Pataki, far-right president? Not on my watch. nt