“The F.D.A. has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the petition. Indeed, it could accurately be described as an administrative agency filibuster.”...Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?
Scientists, including those at the F.D.A., have been recommending unrestricted access for years, as have major medical groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2011, the F.D.A. commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, issued a statement saying that after rigorous study the agency concluded it was safe to sell Plan B One-Step over the counter. But she was overruled by Ms. Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, the first time such a public countermanding had ever occurred.
April 5, 2013
"Judge Orders Morning-After Pill Available for All Ages."
Federal District Judge Edward R. Kormancalled the Obama administration’s restrictions “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
104 comments:
It's been pretty obvious for some time now, that Obama wants everyone but him to do the heavy lifting. He's not the King, you know.
As a OTC, hard to say no to minors. 20 years ago, I worked at a CVS as a teen. I couldn't deny diet pills or ipecac syrup to a teenage girl, who wanted to purchase them.
Another way of voting "present".
BTW, I note no mention or discussion of any possible deleterious side effects on young "women" 16 and under.
Typical Lefty oversight by the gray Lady or have we just stopped caring in the name of the Sisterhood?
All that's left is to give it out free to The Undesirables.
I'm going to assume the morning-after pill has nothing to do with hangovers.
Or does it?
Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?
No, you're not wrong.
Obama is very good at appearing to do something while in reality doing its opposite.
In a similiar vein, the EPA is the biggest offender in this game.
- Set a standard.
- have industry squeal
- have Eco groups take the EPA to court.
- after lots of faux agony, the EPA signs on to an even stricter rule, because the courts made them do it.
rinse and repeat.
That's one of the reason conservatives want all those Lisa Jackson emails from her alternate, non-NARA compliant accts that were slipping through FOIA requests. They think the mails will show this backdoor coordination.
Yeah, I'm guessing Sebelius and Obama are happy with this.
Now. How does it get covered by insurance?
I have a hard time believing this wont be abused by girls who don't want to go through the trouble of getting a prescription for the pill. Should be interesting.
"Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?"
Yes, you are wrong. Dem pols would prefer to have this as an unresolved political issue that they could use to motivate women to vote dem.
OTOH, a lot of GOP pols are secretly happy that this has been imposed by the courts so they don't have to deal with social conservatives on this issue.
At this point, what difference does it make?
If you've spent decades turning the courts into political institutions you should at least use them.
But the morning after pill is expensive enough to be a deterrent, and to use other forms of family planning. Most teens will have an IUD, covered free by insurance so there will be a reduced demand for it.
Ann Althouse said...
Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?
Ask who will be the primary users in the face of this ruling.
Offhand, I'd say Der Reichsfuhrer-SS' penpal wins another one.
Also keep in mind all the organizations encouraging this ruling have long since been Gramscified.
We'll know if they decide not to appeal.
If the morning-after pill is available over-the-counter, does that mean that it's not one of the FREE FREE FREE "preventative care" goodies in ObamaCare?
Lead from behind.
I think it's usually safe to assume that anything having to do with sex, reproduction, privacy, health care, and civil rights is being manipulated by social engineers. This has been happening for years, but we're all so jaded now that they don't even have to pretend to hide their tracks.
Fiddle while Rome burns.
If the morning-after pill is available over-the-counter, does that mean that it's not one of the FREE FREE FREE "preventative care" goodies in ObamaCare?
I think that's the case. My drug coverage (and it's pretty generous) does not cover OTC meds. I wonder if it's even something that could be bought with pre-tax $$ in a medical savings account.
Does anybody think this will make Sebilius desperate to find a way to make it part of the Obamacare free plan? Breast pumps were not by prescription, but they were included.
It may be "safe if used as directed", but given that you are talking about 14 and 15 yo's here, are they really into calculating fertility cycles or is the answer is that they are going to use the pill after every vaginal event?
I think it's usually safe to assume that anything having to do with sex, reproduction, privacy, health care, and civil rights is being manipulated by social engineers.
The social engineers are doing their best to throw a monkey wrench into the system.
But, my bet is that technology, i.e. the internet, is playing a much larger role. See Althouse's earlier post on Lil' Poopy and my post on The International Online Whorehouse.
I think the emerging sexual free-for-all is mostly technology and consumer driven. People are choosing what they want. What they want is a lot of sex.
The role of government in facilitating this is probably great in the distribution of welfare which gives people more time to indulge in the free-for-all.
"Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?"
Korman blasted U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius for overruling the FDA, which had approved Plan B for all ages without a prescription. Sebelius had argued that 11-year-old girls might not be able to understand how to use the drug properly.
The judge called Sebelius' explanation "politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and contrary to agency precedent."
Scientists, including those at the F.D.A., have been recommending unrestricted access for years ...
"Scientists" have also said that the earth is heating up rapidly, something that is not in fact being observed. I wish I could trust the government scientists to have adequately assessed the risks for young women, but right now if a government scientist said that the sky is blue I'd want to go check it for myself.
Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?
Not hardly.
Drug testing is virtually never done on minors because they can't give consent, so how a drug affects a child is pure guess work for the first few years. But that's just as true if it's by prescription as if it's over the counter. Bringing a doctor into the discussion doesn't help.
Besides, it's not a person, it's a bunch of cells. Her body and all. Getting an abortion is kind of like clipping your fingernails. And who could be against that?
Yes, garage, and Obama and Sebelius took a lot of heat for that. So much heat, they decided all other forms of birth control should be free. To prove to women's groups that they don't hate women..
So ban candy machines and pop machines from schools becasue they are bad for you but the take away all restrictions on this? Girls have died after taking this pill. The state of young girls today is so depressing. It is now expected that a girl will be a sex object/receptable and it just keeps getting worse. I don't understand why women have let this happen to girls.
So ban candy machines and pop machines from schools becasue they are bad for you but the take away all restrictions on this? Girls have died after taking this pill. The state of young girls today is so depressing. It is now expected that a girl will be a sex object/receptable and it just keeps getting worse. I don't understand why women have let this happen to girls.
MayBee said: I have a hard time believing this wont be abused by girls who don't want to go through the trouble of getting a prescription for the pill.
I guess we're supposed to assume that this has been considered and studied by the powers that be, but I simply cannot imagine how this hormonal hit could not negatively affect a person who takes it over and over again.
I find myself trusting the science of anything that involves women's or sexual health less and less - it's simply too politicized, and too risky for many to oppose, lest they be accused of launching a "war on women."
Am I wrong to assume that Obama and Sebelius are secretly pleased to have the court impose this for them?
I'll join in with those who say yes. Free stuff Obamacare can do for you, something to bash social conservatives with, less business for Planned Parenthood, etc.
I find myself trusting the science of anything that involves women's or sexual health less and less - it's simply too politicized, and too risky for many to oppose, lest they be accused of launching a "war on women."
I completely agree.
Dems have occasionally found this a useful ploy ever since Buchanan used it 150 years ago.
Cash a Check? Drive a car?
We'll need to see your ID, here's some paperwork. Buy a revolver? We need to run a federal background check, and there's a mandatory waiting period.
Vote for President? Need abortifacients?
Why, that's Over the Counter, no paperwork required. As often as you like!
Society rewards the behavior it wants to promote.
carrie said...
So ban candy machines and pop machines from schools becasue they are bad for you but the take away all restrictions on this?
It is puzzling, isn't it? A 14 year old girl can't get her ears pierced in most places without parental concent. She can't go on a school field trip without parental permission. She's too young to legally drink, vote or drive. But she can freely get contraceptives and abortions which can have serious health issues. Strange.
Why the abortion tag? Morning after pill is birth control.
"If the morning-after pill is available over-the-counter, does that mean that it's not one of the FREE FREE FREE "preventative care" goodies in ObamaCare?"
Well, isn't that the point? If you have to go to the doctor to get this pill, it drives up health care costs, the very expenses that insurers are forced to cover. Better to leave it to women to take care of their problems on their own.
I think I will have my 10 year old daughter go request one just for grins.
Trey
SC, The pill can prevent implantation if conception occurred.
Ann Althouse said...
"If the morning-after pill is available over-the-counter, does that mean that it's not one of the FREE FREE FREE "preventative care" goodies in ObamaCare?"
Well, isn't that the point? If you have to go to the doctor to get this pill, it drives up health care costs, the very expenses that insurers are forced to cover. Better to leave it to women to take care of their problems on their own.
I thought the point was that a year ago Sandra Fluke taught us this constituted a war on women. Yet now the administration is doing the exact same thing to no objection.
Will there be mandatory reporting on this? If a 10 year old were to go in for the morning after pill, would anybody hear about it? If she had her arm broken in a weird way, the medical professional would have to report that.
Marshal- this isn't part of the war on women, because it involves getting contraceptives to young girls instead. So duh.
There should be a Parent's Bill of Rights.
Nothing about abortion follows the rules of common sense or prevention of harm to girls and women. It's the most perverse set of permissiveness and restraint ever devised. How women can see any part of it as liberating is beyond me.
The FDA isn't supposed to be in the parental consent business. Its mandate focuses on whether a particular drug is safe and effective for its designated use. Unless there was some reason to think this pill was not safe and effective for an potential under-16 year olds, there was no basis for the FDA to single them out and require a prescription.
That doesn't necessarily mean that a parental consent type requirement would be crazy before such pills could be sold to minors. But, if so, the FDA was not the agency to impose it, and the way to impose it was not to require a prescription.
I think Ann is right that O and Sibelius are relieved that a court has forced a change in FDA treatment of the pill. Judge Korman is nominally a Democrat but not at all a partisan (and on most issues fairly conservative to boot). I suspect that some of the sharpness of his criticism was the result of the judge's perception that political motives were the primary reason for the FDA's irrational actions. This judge wouldn't have liked that kind of maneuvering by Sibelius (and O) at all.
Yet Sebilius had no problems with 15 y.o. choosing to get sterilized and not telling parents.........
What difference, at this point, does it make?
MayBee said...
Marshal- this isn't part of the war on women, because it involves getting contraceptives to young girls instead. So duh.
Last year's war on women included making birth control OTC. Fluke et al claimed this was a war on women because OTC drugs are not covered by insurance.
SC, The pill can prevent implantation if conception occurred.
Well, so can the birth control pill, and IUDs, and breast-feeding. I don't think pro-lifers should worry about this.
I do think people should be concerned about giving underage girls hormones. For instance, some birth control pills increase the risk for breast cancer.
But that's not a pro-life criticism. I do not think pro-lifers should be fighting against birth control. There's no intent to do an abortion, and nobody knows that an abortion has happened. To say it's an abortion is speculative and theoretical. It might be an abortion, of a microscopic zygote. But the day after pill works the exact same way that a birth control pill works. (And breast feeding!)
I think pro-lifers should focus on infanticide. Getting into a fight over the possiblity of an abortion from ordinary birth control is stupid tactics, and a diversion.
We do have rights, as parents. We have the right to teach them well and how to choose wisely.
Let me get this straight. If you are under 16 you are too immature to make decisions in driving but you are fine for taking meds? We require parental approval for cosmetic surgery but not even parental notification for abortion. The First Lady has taken choice out of schools when it comes to lunch and snacks but not for sex. Strange times indeed
It is now expected that a girl will be a sex object/receptable and it just keeps getting worse. I don't understand why women have let this happen to girls.
How women can see any part of it as liberating is beyond me.
Hey, but feminists will tell us that grrls today are "empowered". Receptacle Power!
But seriously, I also feel bad for today's young girls. The peer pressure was tough in the 70s if you were a teen girl who didn't "put out". I can't imagine what it is today, what with pre-teens giving bjs on the school bus.
And the idea that a child will be able to use this type of drug responsibly is just more of the insanity that passes for wisdom among the decent people who want to completely run our lives.
The day after pill is quite handy in cases of rape. And I think every school child should be taught that you can still use birth control if you are raped, and avoid a pregnancy.
I think pro-lifers should applaud the day-after pill and respond to any question about rape with the day-after pill. It is, by far, the best thing to do with rape victims. And not thinking about rape gets pro-lifers in trouble, as we learned in spectacular fashion in 2012.
Breastfeeding?
There are many of times in which a woman may conceive, but naturally for whatever reason there is no implantation. I wouldn't place breastfeeding at the same level of the Pill. With breastfeeding there is no intention of preventing an implantation.
Even when you are breastfeeding, you can still monitor cervical mucus for signs of ovulation.
Marshal- urg. Yeah. I was bring flip, because of the young girls thing. As if that would make it not part of the war on women.
The morning after pill isn't an abortifacient.
Sebilius was shot down by the Judge, she did the right thing.
When I have to have this pill on hand for my daughter in case she is raped at the age of 11, then we have a rape problem not an access problem to the pill.
Does the court allow make teens to purchase this drug, or just females?
Renee, there has been a " rape problem" for thousands of years.
Igna, true. Just depressing of the thought of it though.
Why why why are you obsessed with birth control Renee? I understand you are Catholic, but not everyone else is.
It's more then just being Catholic, it is the idea that we shouldn't treat our bodies as defective.
All of the Catholic parts, came after learning about Natural Family Planning and Fertility Awareness in my mid-20s.
I just see birth control as more as corporate profit on women. Plus all the synthetic chemicals in the water supply, that do not break down. Also that it is normal to ovulate, we shouldn't be suppressing natural sexuality.
I don't find the logic that I have to suppress biological sexuality, to be liberated. We are who we are as women, fertility and periods and all. Plus the fact that avoiding during the fertile phases is shared with my husband, the responsibility isn't held solely on me.
You need a very cooperative husband for NFP.
Rene,
Without birth control, there would be more abortions. It's a sad fact. You and I may want women to respect their own bodies and be reverential toward the gifts God gave them, but the fact is many won't. Plus there is the "rape problem".
Better to prevent a life than destroy one.
"SC, The pill can prevent implantation if conception occurred."
I'm not sure the research has established this.
Progesterone causes the lining to thicken and be receptive to implantation. If the pills are a mixture of estrogen and progesterone, like BC, why would the pills disrupt the lining?
The abortion pill cuts off progesterone production, which disrupts the pregnancy. But the morning after pill supplements estrogen and progesterone, which is what doctors do with IVF to support pregnancy in the implantation stage.
Igna,
I so much question that theory. Birth control only allowed me to have men, I would never in a million years would want to have a baby with. So if birth control failed, who knows I would of probably aborted. (Scary, I know)
Birth control changes who we choose for sexual partners, if we perceive no risk in having a baby with the guy you're more likely end up hooking up with him. Birth control has failure rates, sometime as much as we don't want to get emotionally attach to someone we know that is no good for use we're bonded through sex.
The risk is in the method failure rate, as a woman use lose that control.
Is there a method failure rate with Natural Family Planning? Yes, but you're more likely to be in a healthy relationship with the man, usually who would be more supportive, loving, and respectful of you.
Birth control can only do so much, and I think it distorts the realities of what is needed for a healthy relationship.
I wouldn't place breastfeeding at the same level of the Pill.
One is artificial and one is natural but I believe the mechanism is similar. Breast-feeding often stops ovulation, which is how some people practice natural family planning.
But breast-feeding can also weaken the lining of the uterus, just like the pill. Thus, if by some miracle fertilization happens, breast-feeding can theoretically cause an abortion.
With breastfeeding there is no intention of preventing an implantation.
I agree there's no intent. And there's no way of knowing that an abortion has happened. It's entirely speculative and silly to worry about it.
But you can say the same thing about the pill and about the IUD. There's no intent to do an abortion. And there's no way of knowing that an abortion has happened.
I do not think pro-lifers should be fighting against birth control.
I don't think most are (with the exception of the catholic branch, but those are for different reasons, some of which Renee laid out).
Although in all the talk about birth control, condoms should be mentioned too since they actually do double duty of preventing pregnancy and preventing you from getting horrible diseases. That's kind of important too.
One area I diverge from my fellow conservatives is on the issue of free birth control. Please, please, please, shower the inner city, the barios, the rural trailer parks and methlands with hails of free birth control! Squadrons of C-130's should take flight daily to belch loads of free birth control into the skies over every concentration of shiftless, blood-sucking Democrats. Do it to save the Republic.
Its mandate focuses on whether a particular drug is safe and effective for its designated use. Unless there was some reason to think this pill was not safe and effective for an potential under-16 year olds, there was no basis for the FDA to single them out and require a prescription.
Yeah, but you can still require a license to buy things that OTC, safe and effective. Have you bought cold medicine lately?
Rene, I had four children with my husband. For several of my years with him I took BC pills. It didn't want to make me go out and cheat on him with someone else.
BC prevents pregnancy with a partner you love and live with or a one night stand.
I'm not sure the research has established this.
Very good discussion here.
"A federal judge has ordered drug stores to make the morning after pill available, over the counter, to people of any age. Because that's a decision one dude in a robe with a gavel should be able to make on behalf of every state, store, and business owner in the country."
Matt Walsh on Facebook
Not even hardly. Could the fix have been in?
Renee, nice discussion of similarities between breast-feeding and the pill here
Eliminate all entitlements for single mothers under the age of 26 and the problem largely resolves itself.
What does it taste like if I grind it up in my GF's food? Is it detectable? Does it only work the morning after, or can I triple the dose if it's been 2 weeks?
@dreams
No one has to sell the morning after pill, even a pharmacy. It is a private business.
Here you go, Ladies.
Please use the Althouse Amazon portal for all your contraceptive purchases.
And because I want to help, here's a coupon for $10.00 off.
Anga, if you don't want children, why are you having sex with a woman who isn't using BC?
I realize he is joking, but men need to be responsible too.
Anga....I was thinking the same thing. Where was that? La Crosse? I guy did something like that to cause his girlfriends baby to abort itself.
I seriously doubt 60 year old women need this pill. How about ages 10 to 53.
the morning after pill is expensive enough to be a deterrent, and to use other forms of family planning
The HHS mandate applies to all FDA approved contraception, as well as sterilization and abortificients, such as the "morning after pill." It does not apply only to prescription medicines and devices, but ALL contraception.
Moreover, like this decision, it also applies to minors, such that if some 11-year-old asks for it, it will be provided.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any (nor could there be) limitation against boys buying these things. Why would a boy buy it? To secretly stick it in his sex-buddy's drink, of course.
Remember what I said the other day about the distinction between confused people who are anti-abortion and those who are authentically pro-life?
Meanwhile, pharmacies have been threatened with losing their licenses if they do not sell all FDA-approved drugs.
Of course pre-teens should have access to abortifacient without their parents knowing anything about it.
Baby killers know no shame so babies killing babies are right up their ally.
Keep you stupid Judeo-Christian morality to yourself you disgusting bigots.
And whatever you do, don't breast feed! It causes abortions!
I don't think an unattached embryo can be a pregnancy. Pregnancy is defined by that attachment - it's the definition of pregnancy.
You might be right. It would be ridiculous to say that a woman is pregnant when sperm and egg is united in a test tube. She is only pregnant when the zygote is implanted--impregnated--into her uterus.
Notably the attorneys for Texas in Roe v. Wade argued that pregnancy began at implantation.
A lot of zygotes fail to attach. If pregnancy begins at conception, then a failure to attach is a miscarriage. And yet this all happens at the microscopic level. The woman is unaware of her pregnancy, unaware of her miscarriage.
Garage doesn't realize that his post at 9:53 supports Althouse's hypothesis nicely.
Abortion is just infant sacrifice that pleases the ruler of this world. It has always been thus. Ashtaroth, B'aal, Hitler, you name them, they killed infants. It pleases Satan as it makes him feel that he is cheating God.
Trey
Don't forget your money saving coupon for your Plan B pill....http://www.planbonestep.com/coupon.aspx
I just love how progressives hate anything created by those "evil bloodsucking capitalists" and "evil Big PHARMA," and won't touch a chicken unless its organic because they don't want the hormones.
But give them a chance to dope up an entire sex with hormones through the pill . . .
Trust me, there's been no research about morning after pill abuse, and there never will be. Just like there aren't women who use abortion for birth control. . .
It is all part of our modern world. If you don't think that pre-teen sex is problem that can be solved with a little pill than you must be a bigot and a fool.
Listen to Excrable Inga and her ilk and sit back and enjoy the fruits of your idiocy.
No one said pre teen sex wasn't a problem. No one said pre teen girls should be hopping over to the drug store and getting a morning after pill to take with their ice cream float.
Isn't it better to face reality? Girls and grown women can and will be irresponsible. You can't legislate people into being responsible.
It is of course if preferable to prevent a pregnancy than abort one, is it not?
Hyperbole is easy, Zemo. Much harder to raise children.
Saint Croix-
I'm sorry I deleted the comment. I thought everyone had moved on & we were at the end of a thread.
Agreed - from my research on hormones I don't see how plan B can be an abortifacient. It's synthetic progesterone, and progesterone is used to support pregnancies when women have low progesterone. Progesterone supplementation can be given to women who have a tendency to miscarry to prevent miscarriages due to low or falling progesterone production.
ya know, I get the impression that the scientific facts of this isn't what the debate is about. Some people are really invested in seeing this as a pregnancy and abortion. People don't really care whether it prevents implantation or is neutral with implantation. Maybe they want to encourage the perfect conditions for implantation, which needs about 100 biological things to occur for the embryo to be able to implant. The lining and the embryo actually have to signal to each other. It's pretty amazing.
Does a women or girl have an obligation to produce the ideal lining for the embryo? Is it immoral or a sin if she does not do that? I think these are theological and ethical questions, but medically it's not seen as a pregnancy unless implantation occurs.
Theoretically I think extra progesterone should actually help implantation. Anyways - people are gonna to think what they are gonna to think. As it is a lot of people tend to confuse RU486 w/ Plan B. Again, RU486 causes abortion/miscarriage because it stops the production of progesterone. Plan B is synthetic progesterone.
I'd never assume that a woman who had a natural miscarriage that she had the equivalent experience of a woman who couldn't implant.
If we think about it, there's lots of over the counter things that I'd be absolutely appalled if kids bought and consumed, including alcoholic mouthwash, glue, and Advil. Taking a bunch of advil can cause liver damage.
SC said:
A lot of zygotes fail to attach. If pregnancy begins at conception, then a failure to attach is a miscarriage. And yet this all happens at the microscopic level. The woman is unaware of her pregnancy, unaware of her miscarriage.
yeah - I pretty intrigued by the public versus medical concept of what is a pregnancy and what is not.
If a woman undergoing IVF is implanted with a 3-day old embryo, is she pregnant if she doesn't implant?
She will know if she implanted or not, as blood tests are taken after about 9 or 10 days. If her HCG is above 5, she most likely implanted. If it's 0, she didn't implant.
But a lot of pregnancies end naturally in the 5th or 6th week. Those are miscarriages and are experienced by women and doctors as miscarriages. The doctor has to make sure it's not a tubal pregnancy and the HCG goes down. The woman experiences bleeding and the hormonal changes that come with early pregnancy and miscarriage.
It is not hyperbole to say that over the counter abortifacient will enable this behavior. Enabling bad behavior is what liberals are all about. They all say "Hey people are going to do it anyway so why put any checks and balances in their way."
You have to show age appropriate id to purchase cough medicine in CVS but these idiots will be fine and dandy for kids to buy the morning after pill without restriction and restraint. Because abortion is the be all and the end all of the liberal Democrats. Because they are going to do it anyway so there is nothing you can do.
Listen to them. See what it gets you.
I'm wondering, what do Catholics think abou IVF? In light of the fact that the embryo does not always attach. Do they consider it an "abortion"? Do they think that the procedure should be stopped because of the risk of a wasted embryo, if impregnation doesn't happen?
St. Croix or Rene, or any other Catholic ?
Good idea. Ask a pretend Catholic.
You know like Andy Cuomo or Joe Biden.
Of course if you ask someone like Barack Obama they will tell you that it is not really a baby even if it is born alive after a botched abortion. He voted for a law to that affect.
If you want to know what these people think about abortion just listen to what a Planned Parenthood spokesperson had to say just a few days ago.
These are the heroic truth tellers who bring all this great birth control stuff.
Listen to them and see what that gets you.
An intelligent reasonable Catholic preferably.
I'm wondering, what do Catholics think abou IVF? In light of the fact that the embryo does not always attach. Do they consider it an "abortion"? Do they think that the procedure should be stopped because of the risk of a wasted embryo, if impregnation doesn't happen?
St. Croix or Rene, or any other Catholic?
I'm not Catholic. I'm okay with IVF, although honestly I think reproduction is easier and more fun the old-fashioned way.
We do a really lousy job of sex education. For instance, we educate teenagers about birth control, but we don't really educate them about how hard it can be to get pregnant in your 30's, and how it's almost impossible in your 40s.
90% of your eggs are dead at 30, 95% at 35, 99% at 40.
Post a Comment