April 23, 2013

"Is It Time for Off-the-Shelf Birth-Control Pills?"

A NYT "news analysis" written by its environment and health reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal plays off the news that "a federal judge recently ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make the morning-after pill available to women of all ages without a prescription." We're told that was "a political embarrassment for the Obama administration."

Was it a political embarrassment? I thought it was exactly what is helpful to the Obama administration. Instead of being responsible for cheapening contraception and perhaps risking women's health in the process, Obama et al. can say the judge made it happen. It's great political cover.

But that controversy may look like a tempest in a teapot compared with a broader and no less heated discussion that is roiling the medical community: should birth-control pills of any type require a doctor’s prescription? Or should they be available, like Tylenol, on pharmacy shelves?

Last December the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released an official position paper concluding that the time had come for birth-control pills to be sold over the counter. It was the first time the group had endorsed such sales, concluding that scientific evidence suggested that the practice was safe and calling it “a potential way to improve contraceptive access and use, and possibly decrease the unintended pregnancy rate.”
After having won reelection by demagoguing contraception, Obama is mired in the horrible — how horrible? — problem of implementing the Affordable Care Act, with its promise of contraception coverage. What would be more helpful than birth control pills sold over the counter like Tylenol? Oh, it's safe enough say the obstetricians and gynecologists. What are their economic interests here? Do they want a big new stream of patients coming in for simple prescriptions? Perhaps they fear the piddling reimbursements they'll get for this work. If only the federal courts would take the heat for the decision to block access to doctors for routine birth control care. The federal courts could make it seem like it's about — yay! — Women's Rights and not — boo! — cost cutting.

But the NYT analysis is not about the economics of Obamacare and things that might disturb liberals. It's about the Warriors on Women, the religionists and pro-lifers. They've been questioning the safety of the morning-after pill, which, unlike regular birth control pills, entails the abortion issue. Making righties seems like the opponents of over-the-counter birth control pills is a great distraction from the cost-cutting in the implementation of Obamacare. If righties are the opponents, opposition — to lefties — is toxic.
That legal dispute [over morning after pills] has highlighted the Obama administration’s hair splitting over the sensitive issue of contraceptive policy. Even though F.D.A. doctors said in 2011 that studies showed that it was safe to sell Plan B, the most common emergency contraceptive, to adolescents over the counter, the administration refused to approve the practice. (It was already available to older women.) That set the stage for the ruling earlier this month by Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York, who called the administration’s action “politically motivated and scientifically unjustified” — essentially an attempt to appease religious conservatives.
Surely, the Obama people are privately thanking Judge Korman. Opposition to the need to go to the doctor for birth control is religious conservatism. The judge says it's women's rights!
Politics aside, there are procedural hurdles to clear before packs of birth-control pills can be sold without prescription. First of all, a drug maker would most likely have to apply to the F.D.A. to make the switch....
Most likely. Unless the judges step up.

155 comments:

edutcher said...

Hey, what could go wrong?

From my limited (and I do mean limited) reading on the subject, it seems a woman's reproductive system is one of the more complicated in human anatomy.

One size fits all may not be the way to go here. Is this another "we have to pass it to see what's in it"?

paminwi said...

Then I want my Sudafed OTC, too!

No more "asking permission"!

Nonapod said...

What is the reasoning for Birth-Control pills to require prescription at all? Are they more dangerous than all the stuff that doesn't require prescriptions?

edutcher said...

Not entirely OT:

Having declared ObamaTax a "train wreck", Max Baucus decides to retire.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Hey, what could go wrong?

Right. All those hormone thingies....they mean nothing. Take a lot. Take a little. No effect on your body. Well. Maybe a little. Breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes. But if it helps Obama make his affordable care act actually a bit more affordable, well....you ladies are ready to take the hit, fall on the sword (so to speak /wink). Right? What is a little hormonal mischief to your bodies compared to making Obama look good.

Aridog said...

Whoa. Make day after pills OTC? Cool. Uh, note that they are then no longer covered by health care insurance, even Obama Care. Pay up Flukista beotches.

The Drill SGT said...

Cost Cutting? You may have it backward. Obamacare pays for prescription drugs (e.g. BC pills). It doesn't pay for condoms over the counter. Make BC pills an OTC item, Does Obamacare cover it? Doesn't that cut costs?

As for OBGYNs not wanting to prescribe BC pills? I assume the prescriptions are annual. Any smart Doc will code that visit as an annual physical, for which he gets $200. Without those, an OBGYN can't live off babies and yeast infections alone.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

The rotten sluts who voted for Obama deserve any health side effects they get.

If it saves the taxpayers a little bit of coin to cut down on their abortion expenses and welfare brats, I'm all for it.

TWM said...

This ole country just gets better and better every day, doesn't it?

The Drill SGT said...

ari beat me again

less words n ext time for me

Inga said...

Prescription only. Free.

Inga said...

Think of Gosnell's clinic.

LarsPorsena said...

I want OTC testosterone ....it's only fair.

furious_a said...

Make day after pills OTC? Cool. Uh, note that they are then no longer covered by health care insurance...

...nor Flex Spend, either. That went away a couple of years ago.

Nonapod said...

Personally I think the entire prescription system does more harm than good.

tiger said...

Interesting commentary Professor.

And I mean that in the best possible way.

The Drill SGT said...

Have the Trial lawyers weighed in yet? I see class action and personal injury impacts.

No docs to sue? More mistakes and complications? Drug companies have deep pockets. FDA says safe and effective, but can't make money by sueing them...

Wonder which way they see this impacting their bottom line...

rhhardin said...

If you can meke meth out of it, it will be back behind the counter.

SteveR said...

Please lets rule out the idea that free/easy/OTC birth control pills will cut down on "unwanted" pregnancies. To start with not all of them are actually unwanted but be that as it may, effective use of birth control pills requires a minimal exercise of planning and discipline. Where's that going to come from?

AllenS said...

Is is time to lower the age required to smoke and drink?

Marshal said...

Making righties seems like the opponents of over-the-counter birth control pills is a great distraction from the cost-cutting in the implementation of Obamacare.

Complicating this piece of the narrative is that last year supporting OTC birth control was vilified as part of the War on Women. Naturally the good lefties of the world have no problem claiming both support for OTC BC and opposition to OTC BC is part of the War on Women. Unless you're a lefty of course. For lefties both support for OTC BC and opposition to OTC BC is support for women against their evil oppressors.

m stone said...

Prescriptions generally require a visit to a doctor who may become aware of other health issues affecting the woman. OTC makes the pill accessible, but at a cost.

Inga said...

Norplant, by prescription, free, insertable by trained pharmacist tech. No pills to take daily.

Larry J said...

Yeah, let judges decide. They're lawyers so they must know everything about everything, right?

Renee said...

As a woman, I would like family planning counseling before I made a choice. As a woman, I am digesting chemicals that will alter my reproductive organs to a non-functioning state for the long term prevention of pregnancy.

At least with Plan B the argument is made that its use is for an emergency within a limited time frame.

Why not OTC for pap smears and STDs, as well. You can buy DNA paternity kits too.

Inga said...

NuvaRing by prescription, implanted by self, worn for three weeks, discarded, replaced by new one a week later. No need to take a pill. Free.

Think of Gosnell 's clinic and all those little feet.

mccullough said...

Sounds like a good idea.

madAsHell said...

Let me guess...

First, they're going to fuck the Sue out of us, then they're going to sue the fuck out of us.

Inga said...

Gosnell's patients didn't give a fig about family planning.

Renee said...

Igna.... being pro life means respecting both baby and the woman. We're not uncontrollable animals that need to be fixed.

Renee said...

Igna! Omg. Not cool.

Original Mike said...

"Obama is mired in the horrible — how horrible? — problem of implementing the Affordable Care Act, with its promise of contraception coverage. What would be more helpful than birth control pills sold over the counter like Tylenol?"

Regardless of the fact that it's over-the-counter, Sandra Fluke et al. will still want us to pay for it. It's their right, you know.

Emmster said...

I would love for BC to be available without a prescription, simply because then I'd skip my annual physical. It's the only reason I go. Since BC & annuals are now "free", by making BC OTC, I would have to pay for it (and it's what, $9/month without insurance?). It'd be a great savings for health insurance companies and Obamacare. My costs went up when Allegra went from prescription to OTC. But overall, the cost probably went down since there were no third parties involved in the transaction anymore.

Deirdre Mundy said...

If we make all birth control OTC, then religious employers won't have to cover it. So, I'm in favor. Last time I checked, a lot of theologians had suggested that as a solution since it would let people who were opposed to BC avoid directly paying for it, but still let others buy it.

Really, why should insurance cover them? And why is BC free, but inhalers not? Aren't asthma meds more important than the pill?

Inga said...

Reeen, please spell my name correctly. Then please reflect on the level of care that was given to human women in the Gosnell clinic. Women who have repeat abortions do not seem to care about the benefits of family planning.

You advocate natural birth control, you honestly think women who repeatedly abort their babies think like you do?

chrisnavin.com said...

I could see Sandra Fluke over at Gosnell's place for a photo op. She would be in that nice room up front.

Patrick said...

Inga, "free" is a nice concept, but really it means "paid for by someone else."

Fr Martin Fox said...

Because of course, our devotion to Holy Contraception, our salvation, remains lukewarm.

Pay no attention to the doubters, the heretics, who claim this devotion is misguided. Ignore those who warn of terrible consequences--they are unbelievers whose lot is to be cast into outer darkness!

Do not fear to take mega-doses of hormones, only believe!

Holy Contraception will be our salvation.

Inga said...

Yes Patrick, I know. It's worth the cost to us as a society, isn't it, or shouldn't it be?

Again if we want less abortions, let's put our money where our mouths are.

chrisnavin.com said...

Perhaps Inga doesn't live in a pineapple under the sink.

Perhaps she lives in an old birdhouse in the shed.

Stay human, sister. Stay human.

Surely we need new condom and family planning classes at the inner city high school. Sandra Fluke designed, Obama approved, union implemented.

That'll work.

ndspinelli said...

Padre, I always appreciate your comments. I wish you would comment more frequently.

Drew Cloutier said...

This is how things will work under Obamacare. Popular drugs that were covered by insurance and pose little threat of harm when used will be moved to OTC--like Claritin, Zyrtec and other allergy medications. This way the government program saves money by having us by the drugs with out a prescription.

I agree with Diedre that this also gives Obama (some) cover in his fights with religious groups that object to providing contraceptive coverage.

However, what about poor Sandra Fluke? Who is going to pay for her contraception?

Inga said...

"Because of course, our devotion to Holy Contraception, our salvation, remains lukewarm.

Pay no attention to the doubters, the heretics, who claim this devotion is misguided. Ignore those who warn of terrible consequences--they are unbelievers whose lot is to be cast into outer darkness!

Do not fear to take mega-doses of hormones, only believe!

Holy Contraception will be our salvation."

4/23/13, 10:32 AM

A Gosnell type probably would get a chuckle out of this comment, he would nod his head and think of all the babies he could abort in a day work, seeing dollar signs in his head. The natural family planners would stand outside of the clinic with signs picturing little feet, while REAL little feet were being put in jars on the shelf.

We live in the REAL world, where not everyone is a Catholic.

Renee said...

Igna,

Sorry, I typing on a mobile.

Yes, I do.I could relate more to a woman who had an abortion, then you.



edutcher said...

Inga said...

Yes Patrick, I know. It's worth the cost to us as a society, isn't it, or shouldn't it be?

Only if it doesn't create more problems for women because one size does not fit all. Abortions aren't the only problem that can arise from this.

Again if we want less abortions, let's put our money where our mouths are.

But, of course, it isn't about health or babies (and I thought the Lefties were starting to worry about where they'll get the thralls to serve them if the babies don't keep coming), it's about politics and pandering to all those "low info" voters.

As always, the She Devil of the SS regurgitates the Lefty line without thinking.

chrisnavin.com said...

If that fails, Gosnell will take care of it. More oversight. More bad laws. More unions and crusty feminist hags activating together for social change. More jobs for Obama voters.

This is beyond parody.

Inga said...

Prevention/ abortion/ prevention/ abortion/

A woman has a choice either way. Isn't it more humane to prevent an unwanted life than to kill one? Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" a Commandment. I don't remember reading, "Thou shalt not prevent".

Are we back to vilifying birth control again? So soon after the Gosnell horror? How soon we forget.

Renee said...

Whoa here...

Yes We're Catholic.

But as a woman, any woman even an illiterate woman can use Natural Family Planning.


We have a right and duty to educate on how sexuality works as a whole. Offering free semi permanent birth control she can not remove, because others think so is too irresponsible with her body.

What drives women to abortion is abandonment of love. Sigh...


gerry said...

Are they more dangerous than all the stuff that doesn't require prescriptions?

Yes.

And your quesion is the main reason why they should remain prescriptive.

But what the heck: those who will suffer disaster from abuse of them are the ones who will deserve harvesting what they sow, eh?

I am amused by the Progressive/Libertarian logic of it all.

And just wait until the transgendered think they've been given the keys to the hypertransmissioned vehicle of their desires. Egad, what a disaster!

AJ Lynch said...

"It is time for FREE off-the-shelf birth control pills".

Fixed that for you. And you are welcome,
Best regards,
Sandra Fluck

Gwen said...

I live overseas in a developed country that allows birth control pills to be sold OTC except Yasmin and maybe a couple of other brands. They are about $10 a pack. We do have a form of national health insurance. No idea if they was a factor in the decision to make the pill OTC.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Prevention/ abortion/ prevention/ abortion/

A woman has a choice either way. Isn't it more humane to prevent an unwanted life than to kill one? Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" a Commandment. I don't remember reading, "Thou shalt not prevent".


Except for Protestants, I think there is.

Are we back to vilifying birth control again? So soon after the Gosnell horror? How soon we forget.

Oh, Christ, what drivel!

The Willie Whitewater school of public manipulation. Because we're careful about the risks of generic contraception methods, that constitutes "vilification". There's no middle ground, no thoughtful concern.

IOW, Squirrel!!

PS Whatever happened to giving it up for adoption?

Oh, that's right, according to the Messiah, babies are a "curse".

God forbid.

Patrick said...

Yes Patrick, I know. It's worth the cost to us as a society, isn't it, or shouldn't it be?.

You might think so, but not if you look at the correlation between much more widely available contraception and increased unwanted pregnancy.

Not to say contraception should not be available, but effective contraception is already cheap and easy to obtain. Making it even easier and cheaper or free will not eliminate or even reduce unwanted pregnancy among those who are currently too irresponsible to use it.

sydney said...

What is the reasoning for Birth-Control pills to require prescription at all? Are they more dangerous than all the stuff that doesn't require prescriptions?

Yes, they are. Quite more dangerous. There are medical contraindications to them that the average user may not be aware of, or may chose to ignore. For example, a woman who has migraines with visual auras should not take hormonal contraceptives. They can increase her risk for a stroke. They are also known to cause blood clots and pulmonary emboli, which can be fatal. Considering that some drugs, such as Vioxx, have been taken off the market for less, I'm surprised the FDA hasn't taken oral contraceptives off the market. But then, they are a politically protected class.

Patrick said...

Are we back to vilifying birth control again?

Refusal to provide it for free = "vilifying?" That's cheap demagoguery.

Renee said...

@ Patrick,

For the record my first comment was about the want for family planning counseling. It's Inga that bring up Gosnell and blaming those who promote Natural Family Planning, are somehow at fault.

ken in sc said...

Having sex with a man you do not love, admire, and respect enough to have his baby, is what causes abortions.

Aridog said...

Renee said...

What drives women to abortion is abandonment of love. Sigh...

Like in fucking a lot of strangers, right? Maybe some DO need to be spayed?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Again if we want less abortions, let's put our money where our mouths are.

[If we are going to make body parts analogies.....]

If we want less abortions, let's keep our knees together.

I know!!! Let us make everything OTC then we won't HAVE to buy health insurance or be fined for NOT buying health insurance. Pay as you go. The price on everything will come down. Maybe even let us buy a catastrophic policy for those unexpected dire emergency events. Ooooops....Obamacare took that option off of the table.

MadisonMan said...

@DBQ: Totally. All the medical information you need is available via the internet, after all.

Who needs doctors!? (Sorry Pogo).

gerry said...


Refusal to provide it for free = "vilifying?" That's cheap demagoguery.


Inga is a cheap demagogue.

Well, that figures.

Patrick said...

Got it, Renee.

Actually, NFP is also very useful when couples are actually trying to conceive.

Does anyone really think that the women who used Gosnell's services would even bother with contraception?

MayBee said...

Hmmm. I wonder if taking the doctor consultation out of it would result in a decrease in unplanned pregnancies (more access) or an increase (less accurate use)

It's funny,because during the Sandra Fluke debate the argument was about how hard it is for a woman and her doctor to find the right pill. She can't just use the cheap one! So will the argument become, of course a woman can choose an OTC pill!?

Inga said...

Are we back to vilifying birth control again?

Refusal to provide it for free = "vilifying?" That's cheap demagoguery.

4/23/13, 11:01 AM

No Patrick I was referring to Father Fox and Renee's comments. I was not saying BC was being vilified because I wasn't free. It's being vilified as "unhealthy".

Think about this, how "healthy" is abortion for the unborn baby?

MadisonMan said...

Would this be a business opportunity?

There are many OTC pills, and many different doses. How do you know which one is right for you?

Go to a Pill Adviser, who can listen to you, and then give advice on which pill/dose is right for you. I think you could do this in such a way as to claim you were not practicing medicine.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Madison Man

What is wrong with paying for the service as you receive it? When you go to the doctor, which for most people isn't all that often or shouldn't be very often, give them a check or pay cash. If the doctors don't need to hire 6 people to support their work by doing insurance billing, the cost of the visit will come down.

THIS is what WE do. Pay cash. Even with a pre-existing condition for my husband our total out of pocket costs are less than $2000 for the year. This includes prescriptions (generic), blood testing and physical check 2 times a year for him, once a year for me and a mammo every other years. Plus an occasional visit for me (if I'm bleeding from a deep wound or broke something). Beats the living snot out of paying $1800 a month for health insurance that covers crap we don't need.....like maternity coverage.

Because we pay as you go....we get a steep discount on everything. Doctor's visit is $35.

MayBee said...

In Hong Kong almost everything is available OTC. In Japan and England, almost nothing is.

MayBee said...

Wouldn't the pharmacist be a good pill advisor?

garage mahal said...

Health care should be like how a dog gets health care from a veterinarian. You can't afford something you either let it go and hope it gets better, or they put you down. Do dogs and cats complain about it? No.

cubanbob said...

If BC pills become OTC then the drug companies are going to demand immunity from lawsuits.

If BC pills and morning after pills become OTC and abortion stays legal then it's time to make child support voluntary. If the republicans were to propose that and make paternity tests mandatory for the purposes of child support and alimony enough liberal men will support them inspite of losses of woman voters to guarantee them for various election cycles. An added benefit would be the probable large reduction in single mothers and abortions.

Henry said...

Sell the morning after pill in a Bloody Mary mix and you've got your whole weekend covered.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Health care should be like how a dog gets health care from a veterinarian. You can't afford something you either let it go and hope it gets better, or they put you down.

There is a little nugget of truth in here. Most of the time, whatever ails you will get better all by itself. The ability to take yourself to the doctor for every little hangnail, sniffle, ache and pain ....AND then get the insurance company to pay two to three times the actual cost of the procedure is why our health care costs AND why our insurance premiums are going sky high.

Seeing Red said...

Now if they can get these hormones out of our water systems & oceans, we'd be a lot better off.

Faster, please!

edutcher said...

MayBee said...

Wouldn't the pharmacist be a good pill advisor?

Does he know your every ill and what might be causing it?

More to the point, does he prescribe the medicine or merely make up the prescription?

MadisonMan said...

@DBQ, I was clumsily agreeing with you.

You should have insurance -- if you want it -- for things like cancer, heart attacks, broken limbs. (If you don't have insurance for that kind of thing, and you're in an accident, pay!) Make sure you choose wisely. (Link to Indiana Jones not included here)

Routine maintenance? Pay up front.

Seeing Red said...

Inga, we've been sucking down these hormones in our water systems for 60 years, not to mention what it might have been doing to the ocean environment.

Robin Goodfellow said...

This seems like a really bad idea. Birth control prescriptions often have very serious side effects, one of the biggest being depression. I've heard and seen how serious those side-effects can be and they are no joke. And people do not always appreciate that BC is the cause. I have to wonder what sort of impact this has on the world, how many relationships have been destroyed, jobs quit, or even suicides attempted. Many people also don't appreciate the huge variety in BC formulations out there and what the different options are. Whether it's a nurse practitioner or a doctor I think having someone to consult with is probably a good idea for anyone on a hormonal therapy regime.

Scott M said...

One size fits all may not be the way to go here. Is this another "we have to pass it to see what's in it"?

Isn't it odd that this phrase applies equally to Obamacare, kidney stones, and stool samples?

MayBee said...

Edutcher- I was responding to MadMan's business idea of a pill advisor in a post-prescription world.

A doctor would know your problems if you told him.
And he would prescribe medication if that's what the law allowed.

n.n said...

The Gosnell massacre would not have been prevented by access to free birth control. The problem was not only Gosnell, who was a contractor, but his clients, the mothers, as well as the people who support and normalize elective abortion as a choice.

The problem is that dissociation of risk causes corruption. While it is dreams of material (e.g. redistributive change), physical (e.g. promiscuity), and ego (e.g. activism through symbolism) instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress. The dissociation is engendered by policies which remove or shift liability or responsibility for individual actions.

The Gosnell massacre occurred because women, and men, were promised a life without consequences. The principals in that crime were not only Gosnell but also the mothers, and perhaps the fathers if they also chose an elective abortion for reason of wealth and welfare.

It is policies like welfare, and redistributive change, which sponsor corruption of both the benefactors and beneficiaries. The problem is that a slight majority of Americans support progressive corruption and dysfunction, when promises a beachfront property in Hawaii, and freedom from responsibility for their actions.

carrie said...

I was at the supermarket last weekend and overheard a mother and daughter talking about which brands of peanut butter they were allowed to buy for snacks for school. And then they limit sugar, BGH in milk, etc. at school too. But allow our young girls to put as many hormones in their bodies as necessary so that they can feel free to engage with underage sex and expose themselves to more health risks like STD, prenancy, etc., and these same people are all for that. What hypocrites!

cubanbob said...

One day Garage will understand the difference between prepaid healthcare and actual insurance. Howver today is not that day.

n.n said...

MadisonMan:

This is exactly why extending insurance coverage is not the solution. The problem begins with progressive inflation in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors. It continues with a comprehensive set of causes, including: supply, employment, immigration (especially unmeasured illegal immigration), resource recovery and availability (especially energy), personal responsibility, etc., all of which are ignored in the current review.

People have a distorted understanding of the purpose insurance is intended to serve. That it is capable of reasonably serving. They think it should indemnify them from the consequences of their voluntary actions and that it should be available without an investment. This is the same cause of corruption, especially our financial crisis, which follows from our liberal monetary policies, and is reflected in unaffordable health care today and in the foreseeable future.

This is also why Gosnell's little clinic of horrors was not only a possible but likely occurrence. We are normalizing (i.e. promoting) the wrong behaviors. We should expect the wrong outcomes to become the rule rather than the exception.

Inga said...

What I find really hypocritical is this:

Concern over the unhealthy aspects of hormonal birth control, while ignoring the repercussions of unwanted pregnancies, in the real world. NFP is fine if you are TRYING to get pregnant.

B said...

There is already effective dual purpose birth control available OTC. They are called condoms. They are effective BC and have the secondary advantage of significantly lowering the risk of STDs.

So no, this will not lower Obamacare costs. A further drop in personal responsibility for sport fucking will equate to a sharp rise in STD rates if chemical B/C becomes available.

The strong liberal woman faction will then demand free OTC STD treatments because anything less is another assault in the war on woman.

Revenant said...

All medications except antibiotics should be available over-the-counter without a doctor's note.

Renee said...

"Does anyone really think that the women who used Gosnell's services would even bother with contraception?"

We don't know their story, maybe some will speak out specifically about what brought them to him.

Polynices said...

Tylenol is a terrible OTC drug to use for examples as it's terribly toxic and would never be allowed on the market if it was newly discovered. The dose required to damage or destroy your liver isn't terribly high and is particularly low if you're drinking or malnourished.

Horrible drug.

Renee said...

@ Airdog

"Like in fucking a lot of strangers, right? Maybe some DO need to be spayed?"

No. Not really.

Inga said...

3801 Lancaster

Gosnell clinic documentary that St. Croix liked to a couple of weeks ago. Interviews women who used his services, watch the whole thing, I challenge you. It's an eye opener.

Inga said...

*Linked to*

n.n said...

carrie:

Women have enjoyed extraordinary "progress" from the days of "barefoot and pregnant." Today, they are encouraged to remain available for sex and taxation.

It's an interesting juxtaposition, isn't it?

Traditionally, the value of women in society was as mothers, wives, and stewards. Today, it is principally associated with her sexual (and asexual) organs, and the taxable profit she will produce for the state.

There is a correlation between these positions, and while the distinction is nuanced, there is also a material difference.

For example, women are never perpetually "barefoot and pregnant", and their husbands share responsibility before, during, and after procreation, including to support his wife's personal interests and development.

n.n said...

B:

While condoms are more effective to provide benign birth prevention, and the only effective measure to prevent transmission of STDs, including AIDS, they also serve to harsh a man and woman's enjoyment. This is not what a slight majority of men and women are voting for. They want the freedom which follows from dissociation of risk. They want liberty and a beachfront property in Hawaii.

Also, we cannot (or should not?) expect men and women to be capable of self-moderating behavior. This would not only undermine their ability to enjoy their rights, but it would also prevent opportunistic behavior by public and private actors to exploit and advance their own political, economic, and social standing.

It's an integrated problem.

Fr Martin Fox said...

"Back to" vilifying birth control?

Some of us never stopped, so there's no "back to."

I am glad to "vilify" contraception just as surely as environmentalists "vilify" the use of various compounds for socially valuable ends that, nevertheless, are poison.

Contraception is pesticide for humans.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Now is a very good time to mock the fervent devotion to Holy Contraception, because the promises of the false god are failing left and right.

It is becoming harder to defend the god of contraception, which will, in the near term, result in more intense and irrational defense of it as the temple falls down around the devotees.

Fr Martin Fox said...

The demographic winter, pressing down on us like a tsunami--relentless, unstoppable and in this case, inescapable--will, I think, wash away most of the worship of Holy Contraception.

But, as in the days of Noah, few even realize the storm is coming. Few consider what life on earth will be like when economic growth and social vitality are memories.

Inga said...

Contraception is eeeeevil. Abortion? No mention.

Renee said...

"Contraception is pesticide for humans."

Since Inga brought it up, I pretty much agree with Father Fox.

Happy Inga? That I like the idea my menstrual cycle is free and pure of toxins.

I don't usually get preachy with people about my views, they know where I stand and actually value the reasoning why we use Natural Family Planning. I don't judge women, most women are on the Pill from a very young age prescribed by their doctors for 'health reasons'.

Doctors have been prescribing the Pill for so long to regulate menstrual bleeding (technically anovulatory bleeding), it would be strange to see the Pill over the counter.

Renee said...

Well, the subject was Birth Control, not abortion.

Renee said...

One can have a their birth control fail, and still accept the baby. It needs a lot of support and love, but there are ways through charities for pregnant moms to help them.

Geoff Matthews said...

I was going to point out that these hormones end up in the water, but I see that someone already beat me to it.
The question is, though, is this at a higher level than would have occurred w/o the pill? I don't know.

http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/south-carolina/local-blog/birth-control-pill-endangers-fish-populations

Inga said...

Renee, the tags on the post include abortion, why? Ask yourself.

What follows if contraception wasn't used or contraception fails? Either adoption or abortion or the mother keeps the child. Do those women in that Gosnell video look like the were the types to put their unwanted children up for adoption?

Do they look like the type who should've kept and raised thier unwanted children? Or do they look like the type (and admit that the are) REPEAT aborters?

Now how is contraception eeeeevil?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Inga:

Oh, you want me to inveigh against abortion too? OK, throw me into that briar patch!

Pope Paul VI, who was vilified for re-affirming the Catholic Church's constant teaching that sex, by its nature, is ordained for life, and should remain open to life, made a series of predictions in his 1968letter, Humanae Vitae.

One was that women would not be given greater dignity (as advocates of contraception promised), but degraded. (Check.)

Marriages would not be strengthened, but pulled apart. (Check.)

Society would experience a general lowering of morality. (Check.)

And public authorities would seek to push contraception upon their citizens with growing coercion (Check.)

Now, Pope Paul VI didn't mention abortion specifically--at least, I don't recall it--but it is worth comparing his predictions with those of the contraception-devotees, who then--and now--claim that more devotion to Holy Contraception will prevent abortions.

Just one wee problem with that faith-claim: it's false.

Abortions have exploded in the years since contraception has become widely available.

Note, for example, that the latest wave of promotion of "contraception" as the alternative to abortion has featured drugs that induce early, chemical abortion, re-named "contraception" to make it more palatable, and also to sustain the faith-claim that contraception prevents abortions.

Contraception and abortion go together; because once you accept the premises that a baby is an illness to prevent rather than an inestimable gift to be received, as well as the notion that our sexuality is something like a commodity, rather than a mystery of human and divine interaction--then it follows rather easily that abortion will be justified as backup contraception.

And Gosnell's butchery is simply the expression of that mindset at its most grotesque.

n.n said...

Renee:

The emphasis with pregnancy should be on the responsibilities of both the mother and father. Neither the woman nor the man should enjoy a dissociation of risk. They both need to be equally responsible for their actions. This is the behavior which a healthy society should normalize (i.e. promote). At least a society which desires to remain viable and free.

The emphasis should also be on a romantic relationship between men and women, which is capable of providing for the potential but predictable outcome of their sexual union.

The problem did not begin with but was exacerbated by the sexual revolution. This marked the beginning of a retrogressive process where people recaptured behaviors which are not strictly compatible with enjoying liberty in a civilized society.

Renee said...

"Do those women in that Gosnell video look like the were the types to put their unwanted children up for adoption? "

Well that's the problem how we differ on this, I don't stereotype people.

Fr Martin Fox said...

By the way, I'm certainly aware that everyone isn't Catholic.

So what?

When the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is evil, we don't mean just for Catholics. It's an evil for humanity.

Sure, I realize that message hasn't been received yet. But our Founder and his message were so popular that he was put to death. That tends to blunt the power of the, "what you advocate isn't popular" argument for us.

I Callahan said...

Fr. Fox,

Your last comment referencing Pope Paul VI absolutely nailed the issue. Game, set, match.

Inga said...

"Note, for example, that the latest wave of promotion of "contraception" as the alternative to abortion has featured drugs that induce early, chemical abortion, re-named "contraception" to make it more palatable, and also to sustain the faith-claim that contraception prevents abortions.

4/23/13, 12:50 PM
Should a woman not breast feed? Because you know that breast feeding thins out the endometrium and a fertilized egg many times doesn't implant. Early unknown abortion.

I just heard this on the news, charges have been dropped against Gosnell??!! I'm gong to go see if I can verify this elsewhere.

Inga said...

Sorry Renee, but I'm not going to pretend they are not a "type".

Renee said...

Inga, Seriously what's up with your today?

You have to understand us, as Catholics. We pray for the conversion of Gosnell's heart, as we do for the surviving Boston Bomber. We are against the death penalty.


We defend the lives of ALL people.

And pray for all. It works.

Inga said...

3 of the 8 charges have been dropped so 5 still stand. Good.

Inga said...

Renee, if expressing my opinion is not like my ususal self, that's news to me, lol.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

But Father Fox, with all due respect, not all of humanity is Catholic and not all of humanity embraces the tenets of the Catholic church.

Are Protestants heretics? I guess we were called heretics weren't we, at one time?

Seeing Red said...

Women have enjoyed extraordinary "progress" from the days of "barefoot and pregnant." Today, they are encouraged to remain available for sex and taxation.



And working if you get a degree from Harvard.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What follows if contraception wasn't used or contraception fails
Let me guess.. A baby?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Are Protestants heretics? I guess we were called heretics weren't we, at one time?

And now, you are Infidels. Join the club.

Aridog said...

Renee .... you clearly said:

What drives women to abortion is abandonment of love. Sigh...

So I responded tongue in cheek:

Like in fucking a lot of strangers, right? Maybe some DO need to be spayed?

If you are serious here, which I am starting to doubt..."fucking strangers" = "abandonment of love" ...and was said much better in fact by @ B as "sport fucking." NTTIAWWT.

You say "no, not really"...was that responding to the spaying idea or sport fucking?

What do you call fucking without love and affection, otherwise?

How many abortions are due to affectionate and loving intercourse versus sport fucking?

And don't lay the hypocrite tag on me, sport fucking is what I did for years...but I ALWAYS took precautions to prevent an unwanted booger vault from conceiving.

So there you have my logic for spaying repeat sport fuckers who abort, and castrate the guys too, if you can catch them.

I'm egalitarian about this...I am NOT responsible for any one else's sport fucking....and no I don't wish to pay for abortions or even enable them.



Inga said...

DBQ, a baby won't follow if it's aborted. Not all unwanted pregnancies are carried to term as I'm sure you know.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ, a baby won't follow if it's aborted

An aborted baby is still a baby. A dead and dismembered one, but a baby/human being/homo sapiens sapiens/child/living thing....now dead.

You can parse the words all you want. It is/was a baby.

Inga said...

DBQ, a baby won't follow if it's aborted

An aborted baby is still a baby. A dead and dismembered one, but a baby/human being/homo sapiens sapiens/child/living thing....now dead.

You can parse the words all you want. It is/was a baby.

4/23/13, 2:04 PM

DBQ, NO KIDDING. I'm talking about a BABY being killed because the mother didn't use contraception.

Inga said...

Also DBQ, IF you were to have been observant, you would've noticed I did not use the terminology "fetus". I've been calling it an unborn baby. No parsing of words here.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ, NO KIDDING. I'm talking about a BABY being killed because the mother didn't use contraception,

Actually, you are talking about a baby being killed because the mother wanted to kill her baby.

Now that contraception is OTC....not free, but available at the price of a mocha café grande a month or a small pizza or a six pack of beer, what excuse are you going to make up now to excuse abortion.

There but for the price of a pizza goes the baby? If only we hadn't hat that six pack instead of the packet of pills we wouldn't have to kill our children? So for about $9 a month we can excuse killing babies.

Not using contraceptives is NOT an excuse for killing your child.

furious_a said...

And Gosnell's butchery is simply the expression of that mindset at its most grotesque.

That's why the Palace Media have blockaded the Gosnell story, because it's clarifying even to the low-information types.

Inga said...

DBQ, did someone say it was OK for a woman to have an abortion? Did someone say it was an acceptable "excuse" ? If I remember correctly you have said you were pro choice, but didn't want to pay for anyone's abortion.

You're not making a whole lot of sense, DBQ.

Why did the mother WANT to kill her a baby? Wouldn't it be better to prevent the killing of an unwanted baby?

n.n said...

Seeing Red:

If only we could all attend Harvard... and enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii.

Inga said...

"If only we could all attend Harvard... and enjoy a beachfront property in Hawaii."

4/23/13, 2:39 PM

I don't think the women who used Gosnell's services were concerned about missing out on a Harvard education or enjoying their beachfront property in Hawaii.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Inga:

The fact that all the world isn't Catholic is not an argument against me (and other Catholics) arguing for the evil of contraception, but a reason for doing so. Part of the "go and teach all nations..." mandate.

n.n said...

Aridog:

spaying repeat sport fuckers who abort, and castrate the guys too

That's the solution. If women, and men, reject responsibility for the potential but predictable outcome of their actions, then it is they who should suffer the consequences. Not the innocent human life they knowingly but inconveniently brought into this world.

This is the choice which should be granted to irresponsible men and women. They have the unalienable right to fuck, but they do not have a right deprive another human being of their life without cause or due process. If they give up their right to responsible liberty, then the cause of their irresponsible behavior must be addressed. This is how psychotic behavior is normally handled.

Elective abortion is an act of premeditated murder. It is a crime committed against an individual, society, and humanity. We all have a stake in preserving the value of human life and to prevent or limit acts of involuntary exploitation.

n.n said...

Inga:

You are responding out of context.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Inga:

And your point about breastfeeding is exceedingly silly. But...OK, fine, I'll explain it, amazed as I am that this needs explaining.

There is a huge difference between that which one causes by interference (contraception, abortion) and that which happens unavoidably (breastfeeding, exercise, illness).

So, yes, babies can abort spontaneously for any number of reasons. You say breastfeeding, I don't know so I'll take your word for it. A woman is no more obliged to avoid breastfeeding, because there *could* be a spontaneous abortion, than she would be morally obliged to avoid exercise, or catching the flu, or whatever other, otherwise innocent activities could trigger a miscarriage or a failure of an embryo to implant. (I don't know if that actually includes exercise or the flu, those were wild guesses.)

That's very different from injecting or ingesting a foreign substance, that has no business in the body, with the purpose of destroying a baby.

(The moral character of ingesting a foreign substance that can foreseeably have that consequence, among others--and with a less invidious intent, is something of a middle-ground. But then, all things that are evil are not all evil in the same way, or to the same degree. Stealing is evil, murder is evil; but they aren't equally evil.)

Now, seriously, you actually needed me to explain all that?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Fr.Fox, contraception isn't evil in any degree.

If the fertilized egg does not embed in the endometrium it's not a pregnancy. An IUD makes the endometrial lining not conducive to a fertilized egg, nor does breast feeding. Taking a BC pill prevents an egg from becoming fertilized.

Again, you are projecting Catholic tenets onto non Catholics.

Baron Zemo said...

In New York Randy Andy Cuomo has a bill pending that will allow abortions to be committed by non-doctors.

So this is just part of the same mindset.

Give these pills over the counter to twelve year olds. What could go wrong?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Inga:

Fr.Fox, contraception isn't evil in any degree.

Again, you are projecting Catholic tenets onto non Catholics.


Inga, at the most basic level, my statement that contraception is evil is as valid a proposition for people to weigh as yours that "isn't evil in any degree."

How is it that it boggles your mind that a Catholic (never mind I'm a priest) would actually propose some truth for non-Catholics to weigh and embrace?

Are you trying to enforce some sort of "epistemic closure" on this subject? Why would you do that?

Bruce Hayden said...

I am actually in favor of this. Sure, some women are sure to die as a result of making BC OTC. But, in the larger scheme of things, it will make our fight for male ED therapies OTC that much easier. Called the "slippery slope". You get your BC pills OTC, and we get our Viagra. Works for me.

Inga said...

Father Fox, I'm not saying that you shouldn't preach what you believe to be true, epecially as a Catholic Priest, but perhaps you might try to understand why non Catholics would reject Catholic doctrine? Some of us are not Catholics and Catholic doctrine is not what we believe to be a UNIVERSAL truth, no offense.

I am not saying that what I have put forth is correct for everyone, it's up to them and their OWN religious beliefs or morals.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

My statement that contraception isn't evil in any degree is expressing a non Catholic view, we all get to express our views and beliefs here, but the difference is, I'm not saying my ideas are the correct news for "HUMANITY", as you've said.
--------------------------------------
"By the way, I'm certainly aware that everyone isn't Catholic.

So what?

When the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is evil, we don't mean just for Catholics. It's an evil for humanity."

4/23/13, 12:54 PM
---------------------------------

B said...

This is the choice which should be granted to irresponsible men and women. They have the unalienable right to fuck...

There have been several arguments put forth by the pro-choice crowd structured to off load the responsibility for abortion onto their opponents. The finger pointing argument that resistance to the availability of free contraception - read paid for by others -and now OTC chemical contraception is or will be responsible for more abortions is about as irresponsible as it gets.

Its just another redefinition of the narrative in the same vein that if early abortion were more acceptable then late abortions - which makes even the left squeamish - would be less common. Completely transforms the position of being against abortion at any term into being responsible for late term abortions.

It's a risible argument really and totally ignores the obvious cause and effect. Easily obtained abortion promotes irresponsible sexual behavior, not any fable of lack of availability of contraceptives. If anything, the easy access to contraceptives promotes the societal acceptance of sport fucking as a right and so the cleanup when it goes wrong is also a right.

cubanbob said...

It's a risible argument really and totally ignores the obvious cause and effect. Easily obtained abortion promotes irresponsible sexual behavior, not any fable of lack of availability of contraceptives. If anything, the easy access to contraceptives promotes the societal acceptance of sport fucking as a right and so the cleanup when it goes wrong is also a right.

If you ended the thought at sport fucking as right everyone would cool with that. But with rights come responsibilities and obligations so if the rest of the thought is changed to the clean up is either adoption or raising and supporting the child then that would make a world of difference.

Now if welfare was to be denied to woman who became single mothers by choice there would be a lot less single mothers. If child support were to be made optional ( that is the man agrees to a financial agreement) as long as the woman has access to BC and abortion is solely at the woman's discretion there would be a lot less sport fucking by woman and hence a lot less abortions and a lot less single moms by choice. And probably a lot less divorce as well.



Seeing Red said...

And the government is projecting non-Catholic precepts on Catholic hospitals, so what?

wwww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...

"... requires a minimal exercise of planning and discipline. Where's that going to come from? "

Don't worry, they'll make those OTC too.


DBQ,

" (if I'm bleeding from a deep wound or broke something)"

You lead a more interesting life than I do. ;-)




n.n,

The Gosnell "massacre"? Don't you think that noun should be plural?


cubanbob,

"One day Garage will understand..."

Well aren't *you* today's leading Pollyanna!

n.n said...

B:

I would actually support distribution of condoms in exchange for an immediate and tangible commitment to completely ban elective abortions (i.e. premeditated murder), both through proscriptive laws and cultural rejection.

I would also expect moderation of other dysfunctional behaviors, but preserving individual dignity and the value of human life must be our principal concerns, and that begins with personal responsibility.

I would not on principle support other forms of redistributive change other than for purposes of rehabilitation. A society cannot normalize redistributive change policies and hope to control progressive corruption. It will certainly fail when processed through involuntary exploitation, which causes a dissociation of risk, and is typically processed through the establishment of monopolies or monopolistic behaviors, often enforced through granted or coerced authority (e.g. government).

n.n said...

Kirk Parker:

Massacre denotes a plurality of victims.

Kirk Parker said...

n.n.,

Yes, but I'd want to restart the massacre clock on him every month.

Kirk Parker said...

And the underlying point is more than just being jocular--it's that Gosnell didn't just flip out and massacre some babies, this was a long, sustained, month-by-month and year-by-year effort on his part.

Aridog said...

n n said ....

A society cannot normalize redistributive change policies and hope to control progressive corruption.

That is quite simply because the progressives are a form of arch capitalists, much as they'd deny it. In other words, they earn a profit of one kind or another. [Money, power, influence, personnel base, etc.] With redistribution producing for them they are driven to seek more..."market" principles at work...but bass akwards...they supply something you don't need, you accept it, they supply more, you accept more...soon you demand everything and they're ready to cut you off, but not their power base. Some must be more equal than others, you know.

Aridog said...

n n said ...

I would actually support distribution of condoms in exchange for an immediate and tangible commitment to completely ban elective abortions

THAT is precisely how the progressive redistributive "corruption" you cite elsewhere begins. You compromise on something small that you nor anyone else needs per se...the progressives just say it'd be nice. So you go along...

For the record: As a high school 16 year old in a northwoods BFE co-ed private high school I was able to easily purchase 144 Trojan condoms at a time [once a month purportedly supervised trips to *town*], and share the cost with others in my group. At least one other commenter here went to the same school when I did and could probably verify this simple fact...condoms have always been available at low prices even in remote placers. There is absolutely no need to them to be *free.*

Renee said...

Airdog,

Back in the mid-90s, a student did a project making the comparison that if a person could afford to have a meal at a fast-food restaurant, then that person could afford a box of condoms.

Aridog said...

Renee...my teenage years were primarily in the 1950's and a guy had to go to the pharmacy counter to acquire condoms of any quality in bulk. That usually meant having to talk to the teenage girl working there assisting a pharmacist. A lot of guys were too shy [the reason I bought 144 at a time, hardly all for me, eh]...me, I figured that was a bonus....and yes, those were my very vain days.

B said...

cubanbob said.....But with rights come responsibilities and obligations so if the rest of the thought is changed to the clean up is either adoption or raising and supporting the child then that would make a world of difference.

It was not at all clear in my post but I am in complete agreement and especially with the bolded part.

leuic said...

Family planning provides a supply of source collecting and determination of resources.
Abortion Pill