An excellent forum at the Watcher’s Council regarding the decision to let 15 year olds buy Plan B over the counter

As the mother of the Obama government’s Plan B (aka “Morning After Pill”) demographic, I have strong feelings about the move to let 15 year olds just go to the store and buy the stuff.  The Watcher’s Council has a forum up on that subject and, as always, Council members say the most interesting things — and that’s true whether or not I agree with their conclusions.  You can read it all here, but I’m going to reprint my contribution below:

As the parent of minors, I think it’s appalling. The Left will always justify this kind of rule-making or legislation by pointing to those teenage girls who have dreadful home lives, and are at risk of being physically hurt if they confess to a pregnancy. Yes, those are real situations, but I’ve never seen any evidence that they are anything but a small minority. In the real world, parents whose daughters come home pregnant are not going to be happy, and they may yell at their daughter, but they don’t abuse her. They rally around her. In other words, they are family and they are there for her. (In this regard, I think the movie Juno was pretty accurate.)

The facts on the ground mean that the state’s motive in making birth control and abortifacients available to ever younger girls isn’t because it’s trying to protect a small minority of at-risk girls. Rather, it’s trying to break down the family unit. Sex is a great way to force that schism because, next to hunger, sex is the most powerful motivator. By promising children sex, and lots of it — without any messy consequences such as disease or pregnancy — the state ensures that children look to the state as the bountiful provider. The message is a simple one: We’ll make you happy; your parents will make you sad.

Of course, no one is looking at the very real consequences of the state’s handing out sex like an addictive drug. The state pours toxic hormone soups in adolescent bodies; treats those young bodies with powerful antibiotics; alienates young minds and emotions from those who are most likely to love them; and sends the message that human sex, rather than creating powerful, life-long emotional bonds, has no more meaning than (and about as much charm as) bovine, canine, or feline sex. No wonder the girls who graduate from the hook-up culture in college don’t feel liberated but, instead, just feel used and emotionally frozen. They have been used — not just by the men who get the girls, but by an all-powerful state that has as its goal the end of individuals’ control over their own bodies.

Lastly, there’s also something profoundly wrong about a government that, even as it criminalizes adult men and women who have sex with children, does everything it can to encourage children to have sex. I don’t have a good word to describe that. Revolting? Hypocritical? Sleazy? Obscene? Immoral? I think all apply.

Coincidentally, I just opened an email from a friend alerting me to an article that Melanie Phillips, a brilliant British conservative, wrote about the reason that Big Brother has it in for families. Please read it. It’s very important, and provides a counter-narrative to the state’s claim that parents are a child’s natural enemies, rather than their most loving supporters (in most cases).

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Wolf Howling

    I just finished penning my own post on this latest leftist attack on the family before clicking over to your blog.  It a blatant attempt to marginalize parents and inculcate left wing socio-sexual values on our children.  I agree with all of your points, Ms. BWR.  
    I write to point out two columns that really illuminate this topic.  One is Kathleen Parker’s column in the Washington Post, itemizing the many problems with this federal decision.
    The second column is left wing author Kathleen Geier’s response to Ms. Parker in the Washington Monthly.  She  makes it abundantly clear that this case is nothing more or less than the state being used to displace parental influence on their children in matters of sex. It really must be read to be believed. Her lengthy arguments can be summed up as that sex at any age should be free of any ethical or moral consideration, free of any physical consequence, and that parents should have no say in their child’s sex life. She blithely dismisses contrary argument on the rights of parents as “mere emotionalism.”  

  • Wolf Howling

    Just to add, the most probable result of this FDA decision will be to take parents out of the information loop for their children.  A child can have unprotected sex and self medicate without the parents ever having an opportunity to be informed and to react.  Beyond issues of morality, ethics and immaturity, this has the potential to raise significant health issues.  We all know of the prevelance of AIDS, but what about other STD’s.  With that in mind, from CNBC,
    Sex Superbug Could Be ‘Worse Than AIDS’
    An antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea—now considered a superbug—has some analysts saying that the bacteria’s effects could match those of AIDS.
    “This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly,” said Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine.
    Even though nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS related causes worldwide, Christianson believes the effect of the gonorrhea bacteria is more direct.
    “Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days,” Christianson said. “This is very dangerous.”
    . . . . 
    According to the CDC, about 20 million a year contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD) and result in about $16 billion in medical costs. More than 800,000 of STD cases reported are gonorrhea infections, with most occurring in people between the ages of 15 and 24

  • vinny

    GW, I would be very suspicious about anything said by a naturopath; these folks hate antibioitics, vaccines, and they try to promote sham medicines. Anyway, there are penicillin resistant gonorrhea strains and even rocephin resistant bugs…but these “superbugs” are still susceptible to zithromycin and typical treatment course for someone with gonorrhea or chlamydia is a combination of rocephin and zithromycin, regardless of culture results. Furthermore, these very resistant bugs have only been encountered in prostitutes, who get reinfected often and probably spend more days taking antibiotics than not. If you’re not frequenting whore houses in Asia, you probably don’t have much to worry about.  This nonsense about gonorrhea being worse than AIDS…is nonsense.

  • Tim (Random Observations)

    Bookworm: thanks for the recommendation of the Melanie Phillips column. She seems a brave, caring, woman; a good writer, and has learned so much.

    And yet she can still write this — seemingly cluelessly:

    But I am not ideologically driven. I hate the way political debate has been polarised into warring camps, with each side circling its wagons and striking ever more inflexible, dogmatic and adversarial positions.

    My battle with the Left has never been from ‘the Right’, despite what they say.

    How can I be ‘Right-wing’ when I am driven by the desire to make a better world, stand up for right over wrong and look after the most vulnerable in society?

    Dearest Melanie, you *are* on the right. You just said so.

    Can’t speak for everyone, but that’s exactly how so many of us ended up here — we embraced those values left-wingers *claim* to espouse, and found… well, we found that left-wing positions do more harm then good. And thus changed our minds.

    And then went through the slow, painful learning process whereby we discovered our left-wing friends (sometimes now former friends), colleagues, and loved ones only *claimed* to cherish those values. If they really cherished them, they’d look at the evidence rather than just spew dishonesty and hatred when challenged…

    While I suppose “ideological” right-wingers can exist, most of us are just liberals, to one degree or another, who have been mugged or otherwise confronted by reality, and now embrace “whatever works” — earning us no small amount of opprobrium from our (ceaselessly) self-professedly tolerant, caring, and open-minded critics.

    But hey: better to continue inflicting harm on the world than have to realize (much less, *gasp*: admit!) perhaps one has made a mistake.

  • Mike Devx

    This one’s easy for me: Same rule as tobacco products: Available behind the counter for anyone 18 (17?) or older, with ID.  For teens, still under parental control, it’s up to the parents.
    It’s an easy opinion for me because I support contraception, and I consider the morning after pill a contraception in that it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.  I know many people consider this – a medicine designed to prevent attachment to the uterine wall – to be murder, but I just respectfully disagree with that.
    As a side issue, I’m aware there are health risks, and if those risks are demonstrably strong enough, I can see mandating that the morning after pill be required to be a prescription.

  • Wolf Howling

    Thanks for the corrections.  And based on your comments, perhaps I should be thankful I am no longer living on an Army Post in Korea where, at the entrance to the base, they had a huge sign listing the top 5 clubs of the week where the hookers had turned up positive with STD’s.  
    That said, I think you would agree that normalizing teen – and indeed, preteen – sex is, stripped of all other considerations, a serious health issue, irrespective of the treatability of “super-bugs.”

  • vinny

    GW, agreed.  
    It is very unfortunate that the AMA has been pushing this idea that a teen’s parents must be kept out of abortion decision for as long as I’ve studied medicine. I’ve seen that question on multiple tests during my career, and I’ve always answered it wrong-according to AMA.  Maybe this is one of the reasons that I stayed away from pediatrics, and consequently haven’t had to face this issue in real life. I firmly believe that a pregnant child must involve their parents in the decision of whether to undergo an abortion.  
    About levonorgestrel pills (plan B), they will prevent a pregnancy soon after coitus, but supposedly will not be effective after implantation.  I believe that by the time someone has a positive pregnancy test, this treatment is unlikely to terminate that pregnancy.  Now imagine a teenager self administering these pills trying to terminate the pregnancy and taking them daily. It is known what side-effects will occur if large scale indiscriminate use of this pill is done later in pregnancy. Doctors have been taught not to do such things and I wouldn’t be surprised if such use led to occasional catastrophic consequences.
    In sum, there will likely be a whole avalanche of lawsuits resulting from dumb uses of plan B by dumb kids.

  • vinny

    whoops. It is unknown what side effects could occur in that scenario….
    The more serious listed side effects from current use include blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, hepatitis, and liver failure. 
    Brilliant idea to put let kids buy them as if they are like candy.

  • lee

    So, I, as a real adult (~50) need an ID and to go the Pharmacist to get Sudafed, but any kid can walk in and get this morning after pill? Can the get Sudafed? What kind of ID does a kid have to get Sudafed? Can they get ipecac? (A popular item for the bulemic crowd.) How about any other OTC medicine?
    Me, I don’t think ANYONE under 18 should be able to get pretty much ANY over the counter medicine. Much less this stuff.  

  • March Hare

    Welcome to “Walden Two”!  If I remember correctly, B.F. Skinner posited that one’s first love was the “purest” and should be indulged.  If it resulted in a pregnancy, no problem–the infant was raised in a center by loving adults.  Teen parents would be encouraged to interact, but would not necessarily be responsible for raising their child.  So “Walden Two” could be a blueprint for the future of society.
    I am always amazed at Liberal Logic.  Breast cancer rates are rising and it must be due to the trace amounts of chemicals that leach out of plastic waterbottles and dishes that form pre-estradiols, which mimic estrogen.  E.J. Dionne wrote an op-ed in the NY Times a couple of years ago about how he & his wife purged their kitchen of these product to protect their daughter.  Yet, they seem to have no problem giving that same daughter real estrogen & progesterone in the form of “Plan B” or even regular birth control during adolescence when hormone levels are rising (and, coincidentally, fertility rates for women are peaking).
    Now, which scenario do you think is more likely to cause breast cancer later in life?

  • Bookworm

    March Hare:  What an excellent example of yet another area in which liberals suffer from profound cognitive dissonance.  I never even made that connection — probably because I was once a liberal too.