Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah, the thought of a 14 year old boy getting an 11 year old girl pregnant
and then taking care of it, like buying cough drops,
does not strike a blow for women's rights
 
Girls that age are women? I don't feel betrayed.

yahoo.com

Kirsten Moore, president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, an advocacy group that had supported drugstore shelf access for all ages, expressed anger at President Barack Obama's administration.

"We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science. There is no rationale for this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the commissioner's own letter. Unbelievable," she said.

The National Organization for Women called the move "a stunning betrayal of women."
 
Yes I think as women we can rationally think about both sides of such a drug being available to girls that age. And we can do our best to help them in their lives, however much is possible, to hopefully prevent pregnancy and make decisions that are in their own best interests.

Personally I think that helping girls to focus on their self esteem and intellect will help them to make smart decisions about sex and protecting themselves. And I think that's feminist.

I don't think it's a black and white issue when it comes to girls that age.
 
I just want people who can't support kids... to stop having kids.




This pill would have helped with that.
Today is a sad day :(
 
lazy think = wrong conclusions

Have you read Sebelius' reasoning for not permitting the sale of Plan B over the counter to teenagers? It is actually really silly.

I am not saying this is a good or bad policy. But if you're going to slam lazy thinking, then take a look at her lazy explanation. This was not a medical decision, it was a policy-based decision. Which doesn't make it wrong, but what irritates me is that her stated reasoning is medical and it's ridiculous. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining - tell us it's a policy decision rather than insulting our intelligence.
 
She said this in her statement


"It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age. If the application were approved, the product would be available, without prescription, for all girls of reproductive age."

And yes, I can only imagine the GOP reaction and attack ads and debate comments, etc. if the decision was different.
 
She said a number of things, including:

However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately.

It's a single dose pill. As one commentator said, it would be easier to misuse Advil.

I think there are sound policy reasons for this (though I don't necessarily agree), but the reasoning that it's somehow dangerous because 16 year old girls are incapable of following the instructions tantamount to "take this one pill" is silly.
 
It's a single dose pill. As one commentator said, it would be easier to misuse Advil.

I think there are sound policy reasons for this (though I don't necessarily agree), but the reasoning that it's somehow dangerous because 16 year old girls are incapable of following the instructions tantamount to "take this one pill" is silly.

I see that side of it too. I don't think she meant 16 year olds though, I thought she was talking about preteens and that could be any age where pregnancy is possible these days (like she said, all girls of reproductive age). Anyone can argue they think that is a meaningless distinction, I suppose. Or a solely politically motivated one.
 
As I understand it, the FDA's studies (both the medical effects studies and the label comprehension studies) didn't include any girls under 12. So in citing the fact that a small minority of girls start menstruating earlier than that, Sebelius was basically rejecting their conclusions on a technicality. I agree with anitram, it seems pretty cowardly to hide behind that when most of the potential OTC purchasers her override shuts out will be 15 and 16 year olds, not preteens.
It's a single dose pill.
And costs more than $50 for that single dose, an amount few fifth-graders are likely to have on hand.
 
Last edited:
The average 13-year-old who does have sex will probably steal the damn box anyway, admit it.
I just have a problem with people shoving pills down their throats for everything these days without looking twice at the side effects, or dosage. I do think if a 13-year-old wants the pill, she needs to talk to the pharmacist and get a proper talking to about the risks and whatnot, rather than taking it to some reject cashier in the front of the store.
Assuming she's gonna pay for it.

I agree: less babies having babies. Less babies is good too, but that's a whole other thread. :wink:
 
The primary risk is that if you don't take it, in another couple months you might be having to decide between having an abortion and having a baby. Other than that, the risks are the same side effects millions of women already associate with their menstrual cycle--cramps, headache, sore breasts, nausea. That's it. No risk of blood clots, uterine hermorrhaging or anything like that, it's just an ovulation suppressant. It's not at all a comparable situation to buying a big bottle of sleeping pills or ibuprofen then proceeding to OD or make yourself dependent on them though continuous use.

The fact that very few women/girls/females of reproductive age/WTF-evers under 17 are realistically likely to have the presence of mind (or the money) to resort to Plan B within the necessary 72-hour window anyhow, keeps me from getting too severely galled about it. But Sebelius' disingenuous focus on the remote hypothetical of 10-year-olds buying it, and even more so Obama's smarmy paternalistic b.s. about "alongside the bubble gum" (gum isn't kept behind the pharmacist's counter, last time I checked) both made me want to gag.

It goes without saying that NO American parent is "okay with" their 16-year-old, never mind their 10-year-old, having unprotected sex in the first place, but that's not at all the point.
 
Last edited:
I will admit to not being as up to speed on this as I should have been
I guess I blurred this with the abortion pill

this product seems like it is more for a woman that does not want the effects of birth control pills,
but may upon occasion have unprotected sex, and instead of worrying if conception occurred, for $10 - $70, (that is one price range I saw) she can take one doze and put her mind at ease, instead of waiting to see if a pregnancy takes and then going through all that would be involved in having it terminated.

I see a woman using this randomly, if it was used on a regular bases, one would be better off just taking birth control


with that in mind, I can understand, why in a perfect world, a 17+ year old girl could be a reasonable candidate

but we do not live in anything close to a perfect world, and with one extreme,the person-hood group, wanting to call the use of this pill murder, they want the glass to be empty.

And on the other side, if an 11 year old had unprotected sex, and had the good sense to take this pill, why would any one not want that to be an option, is it better for her to get pregnant?? Let the glass be completely full, right?

well, we do live in an imperfect, political world

Empty glass side have a big loss with this

and full glass side, well, they got 4/5 full glass.

remember if we had a GOP President, he would stop foreign aid if it did any kind of family planning,
and this drug would have no chance of being "over the counter" for anyone, and many would be pushing to ban it completely, for murdering 'person-hoods'.
 
Of course it's not better for her to get pregnant. In a perfect world I don't want preteen girls having sex at all. But I know we don't live in that world. In that world I want them to have all options (to prevent STD's and pregnancy) but to choose the option of waiting.

I do think for many people that is a big part of the issue. Obviously President Obama wouldn't want his daughters to get pregnant but imo no way in hell does he want them having sex any time in the near future. It's not at all the point, but emotionally..when you're the parent or not even the parent. Just thinking about girls that age and all the complications and implications. It's just not easy for many people to separate all of that.

I'm not even thinking about it in any murdering personhood terms
 
mrz121111dAPR20111212084539.jpg


Yup.
 
House Passes $662 Billion Defense Bill : NPR

The way the Constitution is framed, rights are not granted by Constitution, government, or God. They are innate as human beings. The Constitution acts only as shackle on government, forcing it to respect our self-evident rights. Making exceptions is a HUGE breach of Constitutional action. It simply cannot be any clearer that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President to detain citizens "without trial until the end of the hostilities."

Any Congressman or Senator who voted in favor of this is a traitor to the country. By not vetoing it and pushing to make it stronger, Obama is the same. They're all on the same side..Republicans Democrats, it doesn't matter..They're all oligarchs only interested in increasing their power and enriching themselves. While we bicker and squabble over the definition of marriage, taxing the rich, or whether there's a class war, our rights--the very foundation this country was founded upon--are being eroded one by one. Our Republic is being killed from within. It's time to take back this country, or watch it slide into tyranny.
 
http://freakoutnation.com/2011/12/1...-released-on-senators-who-passed-ndaa/?349587

This year’s National Defense Authorization Act passed quickly through the Senate and as expected President Obama signed the bill. 86 Senators in a bipartisan move, signed off on this controversial bill, which opens the door to invasive acts against Americans. Almost everyone has felt the effect of Anonymous’ presence online and off and now, the 86 Senators will feel their ubiquitous presence as well.



The collective activist group just released a massive dump of information, which begins with, ”Robert J. Portman is a Republican Senator from the state of Ohio. He has made himself a target as an advocate of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), but we are truly disturbed by the ludicrous $272,853 he received from special interest groups supporting the NDAA bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Robert J. Portman, we plan to make an example of you.”
 
That's nice of you to ignore Reagan's sleepwalking, Alzheimer's-addled second term where all the the free markety deregulation set the stage for investment banks getting away with murder in this financial meltdown.

Must be nice.
 
That's nice of you to ignore Reagan's sleepwalking, Alzheimer's-addled second term where all the the free markety deregulation set the stage for investment banks getting away with murder in this financial meltdown.

Must be nice.

The only possible way your rant has anything to do with that cartoon is that Barack Obama was still in school when Ronald Reagan's was president.
 
Towing the party line about the evil Wall Street bankers while the DNC and RNC take their money is indeed pretty amusing / sickening.

Considering the record fundraising numbers in 2008, it's not hard to see why no one from major financial institutions is doing hard time for allowing their industry to break the economy.

Can't blame them, though, they're just maximizing their utility with that good ol' profit motive ;)
 
Can't blame them, though, they're just maximizing their utility with that good ol' profit motive ;)



right? saying you can't pay your way out of jail and buy off Congress or purchase the occupant of the White House is like saying you hate America and want to be a socialist.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between America and socialism is who is calling the shots. Having a country totally ruled by the capitalist class is no different from a country totally ruled by the government.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between America and socialism is who is calling the shots. Having a country totally ruled by the capitalist class is no different from a country totally ruled by the government.

That's not necessarily socialism, though.
 
Oh, I'm well aware. I'm simply commenting on the fact that so many Americans fear total control by the government when in reality they're controlled by just as small of a group.
 
Um... Obama IS also president, has been for the past 3 years in fact. But you'd never know that listening to him rattle off his list of who's at fault for our morbid economic growth, high unemployment and trillion dollar debts.

I stand corrected. It is entirely the fault of all those damn poor people and low-wage workers. They're the ones that brought the economy down.

My bad.

A sentiment not completely foreign to this forum. :wink:

I've said a hundred times, haven't I. How about you provide us all with a quote by me or one of the other Lefties on this forum advocating their hatred of America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom