|
|
 |
pookie |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 4:41 AM WASHINGTON (AP) -- By month's end, federal health officials will decide whether to let women buy emergency contraception without a prescription -- and if so, whether the morning-after pill will be treated more like aspirin off the shelf or like cigarettes. Regardless of how the Food and Drug Administration ends the two-year saga, it isn't likely to settle the issue. States are moving to expand access to Plan B, the pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken soon after unprotected sex, amid some competing efforts to restrict it. And if the FDA does allow easier access, the pills probably would come with an age limit -- anyone younger than 16 would still need a prescription. So drugstores would have to "card" young customers seeking to prevent pregnancy much as they now check cigarette buyers' ages. (More at CNN.com) —pookie |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 10:08 AM I've said it before, but thank god for OTC morning after pills in Washington state. They have saved my ass at least 4 times. I can't imagine being a dad at 19. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 10:27 AM Why would they have an age limit? Unless there's some sort of actual harm that could come to someone taking the pill if they're too young (and I'm pretty sure there isn't) there's no reason to do that. God dammit. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 10:47 AM Duh dude. 16 year olds don't have sex. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
Blitzen |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 11:37 AM not to be a dick, bguirk, but if you've got your girlfriend taking it AT LEAST 4 times, perhaps it's time to get her on birth control. What would Drew say? —Blitzen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikeyfish |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 11:48 AM The delightful governor here in New York (George Pataki) recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription. The story reminded me why I shouldn't read the paper; I almost always wind up angry. —mikeyfish |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 12:07 PM I actually do understand why a prescription should be required for going on the standard birth control pill. Birth control pills can cause fatal blood clots in certain people depending on their medical history. Even if not fatal, it can cause a heart attack or stroke in some individuals. So I do think it's a good idea for a doctor to examine someone to make sure that they have no mitigating factors for taking the pill. However, the morning after pill is a one-time dosage that does not carry the same level of potential side effects as the daily regimen of the regular pill. And since getting pregnant is more traumatizing to the body than the morning after pill, it stands to reason that it is in anyone's best interest to have OTC access to it immediately so as to prevent a pregnancy. Having to wait to schedule an appointment with a doctor and for the pharmacy to be open wastes valuable time in this situation where time is of the essence. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 12:31 PM I have faith the FDA will look at all the relevant evidence and then make the most non-sensical decision possible. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 2:05 PM not to be a dick, bguirk, but if you've got your girlfriend taking it AT LEAST 4 times, perhaps it's time to get her on birth control. What would Drew say? —Blitzen First of all: HOW DARE YOU! I care about the women I sleep/slept with and am responsilbe enough to use condoms/ help pay for their birth control. 2nd of all--it's sharing time. 3 different girls/women. I had a condom break with each one while they were having the time of their lives. One of them switched from the pill to Deppo while we were together because she's a smoker and didn't realize we needed to use condoms for a few days. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
adams_babymomma |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 2:09 PM
Edited Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 2:11 PM ^ Well at least somebody is getting some poontang! —adams_babymomma |
|
|
|
|
Blitzen |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 2:17 PM Ok, with different girls, it is a slightly different story. But still... Not to get too personal, but why are the condoms consistantly breaking? Something to look into, maybe. Oh, and "the time of their lives" ? Wonder if they'd say that. (just pulling your chain, man ;-) —Blitzen |
|
|
|
|
adams_babymomma |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 2:22 PM I agree w/ pookie I think its the best way to prevent "kids" from having babies by just making them over the counter and no age restiction. —adams_babymomma |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 3:30 PM
Edited Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 3:37 PM
Not to get too personal, but why are the condoms consistantly breaking? Something to look into, maybe. Because I'm HUGE, just ask your Mom. Seriously though--you've never had a condom break or fall off? Most of my sex having friends have a condom breaking story or 3 or 5. One has the kid to prove it. That used to be 1/3 of Loveline's calls so I know it happens. When you're in that "must have sex multiple times each and every day stage" and if the statistics are 1 in every 100 condoms break (or even 1 in every 200) those odds are bound to catch up with you if you're a serial mongomist like I am. It's dark, you're horny, you (or more likely her) roll it on backwards or something. This is why Drew tells people to get on birth control. My condom days are over anyway. I'm married so it's the pill, making babies, or I get snipped. At least until she comes to her senses or my midlife crisis. This page (not a condom hating page) says that 2 in 100 condoms fail so I'm not that far off. All the more reason to have plan B around. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 3:47 PM I had a condom break with each one while they were having the time of their lives. That sounds very jjgold-esque. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
pookie |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 4:03 PM Note: In an extensive study, it was found that Durex condoms are stronger and more reliable than Trojan. Adam trumps Drew once again. —pookie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ovid |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 9:06 PM That sounds very jjgold-esque. Jeez, keep your personal experiences to yourselves. Bleh... —Ovid |
|
|
|
|
Laxdude |
+ |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 9:58 PM Well Pataki would veto the bill because he wants to be run for president, and he is a "New York" republican - which means he is not the most appealing to the bible thumping black and white rank and file in the rest of the country. One reason why they might put in an age limit is because of who the pill has been tested on. Many drugs are not tested on kids, just as they are not tested on, say women or ethnic groups. Yes, the pills can be prescribed to someone it has not been explicitly tested, but they might have a reluctance to make something OTC unless they have tested it on everyone who could take it. It is a lame excuse, but that is the world we live in today (one where tylenol would no longer pass if it were introduced today). I am sure you would have some people die...but I am sure, the next effect would be positive. I would not even care if the Trannies started taking and abusing them, it would probably be safer than internet/mexican/back alley hormones. —Laxdude |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 8:21 AM That sounds very jjgold-esque. —mandeemoo22 I was hoping someone would catch that. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 8:21 AM That sounds very jjgold-esque. —mandeemoo22 I was hoping someone would catch that. Now I want to delete everything I posted yesterday. Thanks internet! —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|