The Food and Drug Administration announced that Plan B morning-after pills are safe as non-prescription drugs for females 15 and older, a change from how it used to be-- prescription-only for those under 17. US district judge Edward Korman then ruled to
end all age restrictions on contraception, saying that the restrictions on the pills were political and not scientific. But now, Obama appealed to the court, trying to keep the restrictions. Many people,
including Obama, disapprove of the court's and FDA's decision to lower the age, saying that 15 is too young to responsibly buy and use morning-after pills without their parents. Conservatives also disapprove of abortion and the use of contraceptives, especially at such a young age. Meanwhile, others feel that contraception should be available to any female of childbearing age, and they argue that scientifically, the morning-after pill is safe and effective regardless of age. They also feel that Obama's desire to keep the restrictions is
purely political, to keep the religious conservatives on his side. Again they cite the research findings that the drug is safe.
What is your opinion on the removal of the age limit for buying morning-after pills without parental supervision? For 15 year-olds? How about all age restrictions? Is Obama trying to please conservatives?
15 comments:
The removal of this age limit does provide an easier way for those who need this kind of contraceptive, however I don't believe that removing all age restrictions is necessary. It seems to me that if the age restrictions were removed, girls 15 and under will be less worried about the consequences of having sex when they know that they can easily go out and buy "Plan B". This article states that "others feel that contraceptives should be available to any female of childbrearing age". Some girls get their period as young as 12, 11 or even 10 years old. Young girls ages 13-10 are still somewhat considered children. I do agree that a woman should have the right to decide what is best for her own body, but I believe that for young teens and children, parental permission or doctor's permission is needed. As for Obama, he might be trying to please the other side due to the on going debate about abortions and contraceptives, however he does have two young daughters himelf, and I honestly don't think he would approve of the removal of all age restrictions.
I agree with Olivia; lowering and eliminating the age restrictions for girls to purchase the contraceptives would, in many girls' eyes, reduce the risk of having sex and perhaps encourage the behavior among younger girls because there are less consequences involved. However, this behavior may lead to unintended and serious side effects, namely STDs including AIDS and HIV, that younger girls may not be aware of simply because they haven't been taught about them yet in health class in high school. If the age limit were to be reduced to 15 years old and/or eliminated altogether, I believe there should be health classes for younger students, perhaps even in middle school, to educate the girls about the dangers of STDs and make them aware that pregnancy is not the only consequence of having sex.
I think that undoubtedly, President Obama is factoring into consideration the fact that opposing the lowering of the age restriction appeals to the social conservatives. However, I don't think that is his primary motivation to oppose lowering the age restriction. As Olivia and Samantha said, drastically lowering the age restriction or abolishing it all together would cause many serious problems with girls unaware of dangerous side effects or in a false sense of security with the "plan B," and I think Obama, with his two female daughters, fully realizes that. Personally, I think that the age restriction should be lowered to 15 so that the pill is available to girls in high school. I agree with Samantha that health classes should be instated either towards the end of middle school, or at least freshman year of high school in order to educate girls on side effects. Overall I feel that once girls are in high school, they are surrounded or aware of enough sexual activity and are at an age where they should be able to have the morning after pill available to them.
I personally found Judge Edward Korman's argument for ending age restrictions on contraceptives ironic. He stated that restrictions on pill were political and not scientific. However, American culture was built off its political disposition. If everything was scientific, all countries would have identical policies, so I think that argument makes no sense.
However, that said, I agree that the Conservative argument is too political. They show disapproval with no supporting details. So the scientific argument seems more convincing.
I think that what we need in order for this easy access to Plan B to be used responsibly is comprehensive sex ed that is taught early. We have a good system here in the Bay Area, or at least this school district, but this new national policy covers areas where girls may not know the full consequences of Plan B, or know that it can't be used just like birth control. If kids are taught young about contraception, then they can be trusted more with access to Plan B, and hopefully would need it less in general, since they would know how to use "typical" birth control.
Frankly, I think it's a no-brainer to remove the age restriction. If a young person wants to have sex, he or she will find a way around obstacles such as said restriction. Granting all women of child-bearing age access to the pill simply makes it easier for women to protect themselves. If you think back to our senior "health" seminar during STAR testing, Ms. Beaumont informed us of how the school is prohibited from giving students condoms. I feel the same way about this. Some kids are going to be sexually active no matter what, and if the school makes access to contraceptives easier, kids will be more likely to protect themselves and, therefore, less likely to get pregnant or contract STDs. Kids who are on the border about whether or not to become sexually active most likely will not be swayed by legal restrictions on contraceptives. People of that age legally aren't supposed to be having sex in the first place.
I agree Eli that removing the age restriction is a fairly obvious decision to make. Yes, 15 may seem young for someone to be sexually active, but this discomfort is actually a large part of why allowing underage girls access to birth control without a prescription or parental involvement is important. If they are forced to disclose their activities to adults around them, embarrassment may prevent girls from using necessary precautions (including plan B). This only allows more harm to come to these girls, as well as furthering the stigma against all things sex-related which much of our society possesses. It would be much wiser to actually provide adequate health education to teens than to deny treatment to someone who is suffering from a poor decision.
The main question about contraceptives here is: would we rather have 15 year olds have sex without the contraceptives? Under most cases, no I would like to think that we wouldn't. Even if having sex at that age is illegal, people do still do it anyways--thinking otherwise is just acting purposefully blind.
However, the argument becomes sketchy due to the fact that allowing this contraception to younger people will encourage them to have sex. That said, I still find it hard to believe that teenagers are about to go gallivanting around. In the end, I find the 17 year old age limit to be extraneous like many others in this thread.
As for the conservative agenda, no, they clearly don't like the idea of contraceptives. However, contraceptives are about safety, so I feel that any agenda they may have does not apply when you get down the the real purpose of contraceptives. Furthermore, since I'm going to go ahead and dismiss the conservative agenda, it should be easy enough to disagree with Obama's stance whatever his motives. Again, safety. Important.
Keeping the restriction won't deter younger individuals from having sex, but Plan B should remain restricted because it should not be seen as a regular form of contraception. Not only is it expensive, but it also has many side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. If teens began to think of Plan B as their go-to plan for unprotected sex, then Plan B may be used more frequently than doctors suggest which may actually then lead to health risks. Also, keeping the restrictions on for political reasons rather than scientific reasons does not make the move less justified. Keeping constituents is important for smooth operation in government. Obama does not want to create more division in order because Plan B is only one issue out of several others that government looks at. If Obama loses conservatives over Plan B, then a future plan of his that may require their help will be less likely to pass.
I agree with everyone above who said that children younger than 15 should not have access to contraceptives. The reason is clear and has been mentioned many times. They just aren't ready. It numbs down the consequences for having sex early. Even contraceptives are not 100%. (Yes they are a high percentage, but let's not count out anomalies) Also, like many people before me stated, there are other consequences from unprotected sex other than pregnancy, namely STDs. I don't like this should a political act, but an act of human conscious. If Obama is doing this for political reasons, it makes little sense. True religious conservatives would object to any lowering of age. I think Obama is just thinking about his two daughters who are probably around the age of 15. He probably reflects on how he would have felt if the age was lowered while his children were like 10.
I would like to express my agreement with Eli and Shannon's statements. I absolutely believe that age restrictions should be removed.
I find that arguments that state the availability of emergency contraceptives such as Plan B will encourage (or at least reduce consequences)sexual behavior are moot. Plan B will never be used as anyone's primary form of contraception because 1) it is very expensive (especially when compared to condoms and preventative contraception) 2)it provides no protection against STI's. Also, condoms have no age restriction therefore I see no reason why other forms of contraception should be restricted unless they had serious medical side effects. In the case of Plan B, it would appear that aside from minor side effects, the use of the drug at ages younger than 15 is safe.
I don't think it matters if the increased prevalence of contraceptives encourages promiscuity (even though I personally seriously doubt that's even true-- people will have sex regardless) because even if there's more sex, there's more SAFE sex.
Emergency contraception exists to prevent pregnancy. The younger you are, the less prepared you are to deal with raising a child. Therefore, it is within society's best interests to encourage the use of contraception at all ages (in addition to abstinence at younger ages, which is already the social "norm" for ages less than 15).
While the introduction of this contraceptive to younger girls can help reduce unwanted pregnancy, I have to agree with every single comment above arguing against lowering the age limit to buy contraceptives. If the age limit were decreased, would not younger people be encouraged to engage more actively in sexual actions? This is not a matter where protection is ultimately defeated by encouragement. No matter how effective these pills are, they are dangerous on multiple levels; they cannot halt the spread of STDs, they fail to guarantee full protection from pregnancy, and finally they promote quite disgusting ideas to young people. Although this is extreme, I could not stop from drawing a connection to the novel Brave New World (underlined) where children were allowed, and perhaps even encouraged to engage in sexual intercourse. I think it's pretty clear that abolishing age restrictions on this particular area has quite dangerous consequences. As for Obama, I think he's genuinely thinking about his daughters when he opposed Korman.
I definitely agree with lowering the age restrictions on emergency contraceptives. Although 15-year-olds probably should not be having sex, the reality is that it does happen. It's important to educate young people on the risks associated with sex so they can be informed as possible before they make that decision. If they do decide to have sex, it should be as safe as possible for them in order to prevent unnecessary teen pregnancy.
Like what many have said previously, I believe that lowering the age for obtaining this morning after pill is a bad move. Lowering the age will make it seem to 15 year olds that they can just have sex whenever they want and take the pill. I think it will open up the gates to more sexual activity among young teens. Allowing young teens to purchase these pills without parental consent takes power from the parents who should be in charge of these teens. Education should be a priority for these 15 year olds, not lowering the morning after pill age.
Post a Comment