No Plan B Over the Counter for Young Teens
I thought that science was supposed to trump political concerns. President Obama seems to have a good relationship with his daughters. Not all children, especially girls, are as lucky when it comes to their families. Having been molested myself at the age of about 12, and coming from an abusive family, had I become pregnant I most certainly wouldn't ever have told my parents.
My molester was the family doctor. Exactly who would I have told: not the doctor and not my parents. I guess I would have committed suicide or had an illegal abortion since this was before Roe v. Wade. But I guess an eleven year old girl is a suitable sacrifice to the political cause here. So, I suppose are 16 year olds who can also get pregnant and certainly have the cognitive skills to use a pill correctly
Read the article .NEW YORK TIMES/
Obama Backs Limit on Sale to Teenagers of Morning-After Pill
<>
That's patently ridiculous. An 11-year-old can pick up any number of lethal medications on the drugstore shelves, beginning with aspirin. And what parent would want his 11-year-old daughter to become pregnant? Yet that's exactly what will happen if a girl has sex and is scared to tell her parents. Anyone who knows adolescents knows that this is exactly the kind of thing that happens. Then the girl will face the dangers of abortion, or worse. It's nothing less than shameful that the administration allowed a politician to override an expert panel. That President Obama supports her decision only makes matters worse.
Read the article .NEW YORK TIMES/
Obama Backs Limit on Sale to Teenagers of Morning-After Pill
<>
The United States can learn from Europe in this category.
The rate of teen pregnancy is three times higher in the US than it is in Germany and France. This alarming statistic for the United States is a direct result of the ignorance of those on the right whose attempt to "protect" young people form a "liberal society" apparently are severely backfiring.
All one needs to do is look at a cross-cultural analysis between America and Europe to understand what path - and what attitude - we need to take to truly care about teenagers.
In the Netherlands, that "hopelessly liberal country that doesn't protect kids like we do", they have a teenage pregnancy rate of 14/1000, compared to the US's 64/1000 (according to 2006 figures). In the Netherlands contraception is readily available, and they don't possess the same hangups as we do.
Let all grow up and think rationally. The health of our young people and their quality of life depends upon it. I am disappointed in the Administration on this. Very disappointed.
Read the article .NEW YORK TIMES/
Obama Backs Limit on Sale to Teenagers of Morning-After Pill
<>
Kathleen Sebelius has shown herself to be a very smart Secretary. This woman has a great history of common sense and I feel confident the only way she is viewing this is about safety. Her decision doesn't have a thing to do with judgment or morals. You can no longer count on the FDA to protect the consumer as frequently they appear to OK drugs only to have them ripped off the market later over killing people after the drug company messed with the test data.
The pills in question run $60 to $70 for one pill. The fact we're even arguing if a 16 year old can buy this when they cost that much seems a bit silly. Of course caution should be considered in cases where children are able to get a hold of drugs. I have a child with a gene mutation that means she could die if she takes the pill and this drug could kill her. Anyway, my point? Let's take the emotion out of this argument because I'm sure that's what this lady has done. She's based her decision on it still being a drug.
Read the article ABC NEWS/Plan B: HHS Prevents Morning After Pill From Hitting Drug Store Shelves
<>
I have 4 daughters, 23,20, 8 and 6. Here is my take on both sides. I agree that any woman or young girl who has been taken advantage of, should have access to this product without shame or fear. Here's my Mother take on it; do we really want our daughters abusing this product? Not every parent allows their teen to use birth control ( the close minded), and this pill will be the ace in the hole to some, those who forgot their pill, couldn't afford them or simply has that, " I can screw the whole damn foot ball team", because she knows there is a pill that will keep her from being pregnant.
We've all been in the spot of no protection and yes adult women could abuse this pill also but it is up to us to teach responsible birth control to our daughters, condoms protect from diseases, not a pill. I'm torn on this one, because it could be good or it could be abused by some. But, if I was a teenage girl and I messed up, I would want access to this pill, especially if I had prudes for parents and was not ready to be a Mother. So you see, there are many sides to this pill, I am on both sides. Now, if I was ever victimized, I would head for the nearest hospital. If I was a teen girl and had sex wo protection, I would high tail it to the RX before my parents found out. I think the biggest concern is, who would benefit or abuse this pill.
Read the article ABC NEWS/Plan B: HHS Prevents Morning After Pill From Hitting Drug Store Shelves
Should Smoking in Cars Be Banned?
Private vehicles, by definition, are private space and by saying to ban
something in their private space is the invasion of privacy. The government will
violate one of its own laws and is therefore punishable. If people allow the
government to ban something you can do in your cars, then they can also ban
something you can do in your home.
Read the article BBC/Ban smoking in cars, says British Medical Association
<>
Why is it that smokers defend, defend and defend again their addiction. Since
the smoking ban in pubs, society has changed for the better for sure. In fact it
has helped so many give up! If there are areas for smokers to go outside, which
is now accepted, then simply stop your car and get out like you would in a pub.
This is a question of attitude and not one of civil liberty. So crack on I say!
Read the article BBC/Ban smoking in cars, says British Medical Association
<>
I am a smoker in a Canadian PROVINCE (not state, there is a difference BBC) and
I am happy with the current legislation which bans smoking in a car with anyone
under the age of 16. A complete ban however is idiocy. Nevermind any personal
rights that such a ban would violate, think about the 'safety' this would
promote. There may be fewer distractions but road-rage will increase ten-fold.
Read the article BBC/Ban smoking in cars, says British Medical Association
<>
Dear God, when will this nanny state leave us alone? I don't smoke and I don't
like other people's smoke, but we're all adults here and capable of making our
own choices. If you want to smoke in your car then go ahead. I will not travel
with you if you do, but that's my choice too. Government and other agencies
should educate, but the choice of how we live should be ours to make.
Read the article BBC/Ban smoking in cars, says British Medical Association
<>
I can certainly go along with not smoking when anyone is in the car. A smoky car certainly is a smoky place. That's how I grew up - no child seat, in the front, with a smoker, smoking, and not wearing a seat belt, of course, on either side.
But NEVER smoking in the car, because even after airing it out, SOME toxic chemicals remain?
Given that you're usually a few car lengths from the tailpipe of another car when you drive, at SOME point, you've eliminated the low-hanging fruit, passed well into the law of diminishing returns, and the effect your further efforts have are, in the most literal sense of the term, negligible.
Preventing the contamination of those healthy chemicals that come off the upholstery anyway, before they mix in with the exhaust from the cars around you, seems like just too little a benefit to put up with the expense of having the roads crawling with drivers who are irritated and on the edge of performing sub-optimally because they are going through nicotine withdrawal, despite being the only one in the vehicle...
Read the article CBC News/Ban smoking in cars, UK doctors urge
<>
I quit after 28 years, but it doesn't affect my view of the issue.
Just because I don't hunt foxes or shoot pistols, I don't believe it makes banning those activities acceptable either.
Tolerance is the mark of the open, free society. Just because a specific piece of intolerance accords with your personal beliefs does not stop it being intolerance.
Alexis de Tocqueville (I think) called it "tyranny of the majority" and it amounts to personal oppression where a majority enforces its will, because it can, on a minority who have no recourse or remedy.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/The British Medical Association is spouting a lot of BS about smoking in cars
<>
There is a lot of hysteria about smoking. I used to like a pint of beer and a cigarette in a pub.
Apparently though it was stopped because of the effect of smoke on bar staff. All they needed to to do was to install cooker hoods, or extractor fans, above "smoker" seats and all would have been well, an outright ban has closed down many community's sole pub.
Plus, you could have "smoker" pubs, if you don't smoke don't go in and don't take a job there.
If you want to smoke in your own car, or home, why shouldn't you.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/The British Medical Association is spouting a lot of BS about smoking in cars
<>
I think that Children need protection and therefore smoking with children in the car should be banned as should smoking in any room with Children. I think all adults should be free to smoke if they wish too - but stepping outside for a few minutes at home or refraining from smoking on a car journey is not a lot to ask.....in the name of protecting your kids surely? We all know how harmful smoking is - more kids have asthma in this day and age and yet seeing kids in a smoke filled car is considered acceptable?
Read the article GUARDAN/Should Smoking in Cars Be Banned?
<>
Look, I don't doubt that smoking causes cancer and a wide range of other nasty diseases but there are plenty of other things (cars themselves, for example, or even bikes - which generate more hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide than cars) that are bad for you.
I think what irks me about this "protect drivers and oh! won't somebody think of the children!" line is that it's so ill-defined. Why not ban noisy children from your car to protect the driver (kids can be quite a distraction when driving), or make a lack of stereos compulsory. What about people in the passenger seat? I've seen at least one crash caused by the driver turning to his passenger to talk to them and not keeping their eyes on the road.
Where, IOW, do you stop with that line of argument?
If you want to ban smoking because smoking's bad for you the same line applies. What about all the other things that are bad for you: Lots of sugar, lack of exercise, reading the Daily Mail (sorry, a cheap shot, I apologise)? It doesn't matter how many of these things you ban there will always be something else that's bad for you to ban. And even if all the bad things were banned you would still die because all people are mortal so the uncomfortable truth for the medical profession is that you're going to die of something eventually (and there's also the slightly inconvenient truth that people with exceptionally long lives tend to have massively bad habits - like smoking).
I'm not saying you should encourage people to smoke, in the same way you shouldn't encourage people to inattentively stand in front of threshing machinery, but gentle encouragement often works better than an outright ban and in the end it may be that work in gerontology may provide answers that banning smoking in cars will not.
Read the article GUARDAN/Should Smoking in Cars Be Banned?
READ MORE BEST COMMENTS ON HEALTH & EDUCATION: OCTOBER 2011
