Agreed 100%. I sure wish we lived in some utopian version of the US where parents have reasonable attitudes about their children’s sex lives, but we don’t, so I will never, ever support the parent’s “right” to know. Given the realities of American culture, only harm can come of it.

Even many liberal parents have a huge values blind-spot when it comes to their own children. See: pretty much every single SO I’ve ever had. I myself don’t count, because my parents aren’t liberal, so they’d have a problem with me fucking outside of marriage even if I were 40. But I’ve had many SOs with liberal parents, and almost all of them suddenly became repressive, prudish conservatives when it came to their own child’s sexual freedom. Which is why most of them just spared their parents the details, of course, but it’s depressing that the shroud of shame American culture casts over sex is so powerful that even most liberals can’t fully escape it.

It’s this whole bullshit idea of “innocence” that must be maintained for as long as possible, because once it’s lost…??? Even if I grant that notion even the tiniest bit, 18 years is way too long for us to still be pretending our children are innocent.

Well, and the irony is, if we did live in that utopia, parents would respect their adolescents’ right to privacy, and not want to micromanage their contraception choices.

It’s posts like this that made me a regular reader in the first place.  I would have put myself pretty firmly in the “They’re going to do it whether we like it or not” camp, and now I have to do some considering.

It’s not liberals’ fault for being sort of squeamish or the ‘zeitgeist’ not falling our way- this is straight up Obama cowardice AGAIN.

This could have been simply presented as: This prevents abortion.

Obama IS a big part of the zeitgeist. He can (or rather COULD) move the needle on stuff like this. He chooses not to do it because it just MIGHT be bad for BO.

Helen Thomas was on Smiley and West on WBEZ/NPR on Sunday and summed BO up in three little words:

“He lacks courage.”

Co-sign, Amanda. I’d also add re: Option #1 that a teenager who isn’t talking to her parents about sex can’t automatically assume that if she does tell them that it will lead to procuring Plan B. A parent might, for whatever twisted reason, decide to put obstacles in their daughter’s way to procuring the medication. Even beyond your point about the whole process taking time. I went down that route with a family member once who’d had a birth control failure and it was a long process of going to the (thankfully helpful and supportive) family doctor and then a whole series of unhelpful pharmacies before finding a place that would fill the prescription for us (really professionally too—I ended up writing the manager a thank you letter after we’d been treated like shit at three other places).

Anyway, my basic point is that parents aren’t always going to be helpful. For their own reasons, they might be precisely the wrong person to go to for help. If you’re the sort of parent who would be helpful, chances are a) your kid is already talking to you, and b) if they aren’t (for privacy reasons), they’re listening to what you say to them even so, and acting responsibly. As in: getting Plan B when there’s a birth control failure. We should be making it easier for young people to be responsible about their sexuality, not harder. Grumble. Grumble. Grumble…

Unfortunately, I don’t think a beating is the “worst case scenario” for a teen telling her parents about her sexual activity.

And, just in case there are teens in need of advice who might read this comment thread, any adult can buy can buy plan B, and it is not like the pharmacist watches you take it. So if you happen to know and trust someone older than 17…

King Elvis, not to totally defend Sebelius, but the “birth control prevents abortion” argument is all over the place and it doesn’t work because anti-abortion activists do not give a shit about preventing abortion.

I will add that in a number of states, this won’t have any effect on the parent-child thing anyway. Teenagers have a legal right to obtain contraception prescriptions without parental permission in many (most?) states.

Frankly, not only would have I have gotten a lecture, I would have been beaten up and kicked out of the house and disowned right after announcing that I wanted Plan B or birth control pills or that I was pregnant.

I don’t get it. It’s not like this decision makes anti-choice people more likely to vote for him anyways and it pisses off pro-choicers. 

@KingElvis Perhaps this is explained by Obama’s joking that he’s going to send predator drones after guys who want to date his daughters?

Yeah, the irony is that obstacles to obtaining plan B are much more harmful to “good girls” who got carried away in the heat of the moment or, worse, rape victims who were not planning to have sex at all than they are to those harlots who wanted to have sex and planned it in advance and will be able to get a hold of some condoms or the pill or whatever.

@6 I’m in Canada, so the rules might be different, but you’re supposed to be the person taking it for them to give it to you, i.e. you can’t look male. When I was too nervous to talk to the pharmacist myself I sent my male friend and they turned him away. So it’s best to advise teens to send an older, female-looking friend.

To add to #7: I’d go so far as to argue that *no one* cares about abortion. Abortion is a proxy issue for fears about female sexuality. If abortion makes you uneasy, odds are very high that teenage sexuality does, too, and you’re open to arguments about “parental consent”, even if you’re technically pro-choice.

Actually, men can buy plan B here, so long as they are old enough and show ID. http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/what-fda-says.html

So, hey, if you’re the teenage girls being exploited by an adult man, then you’re good to go! So much for right wing claims to be “protecting” teenagers. They have created a statutory rape loophole, while disallowing protection for those legally consenting.

I think Amanda’s spot-on. The fact is that a lot of otherwise decent Americans get all woozy when they think of their teenage daughters having sex behind their backs, and the politics of this are similar to the politics of parental notification / consent laws in the abortion context.

Having said that, I do think that pharmaceuticals is one area where some of the things that libertarians say actually make sense. Outside of some areas like antibiotics (where there is the issue of creating immunities through overuse) and narcotics (where there is a problem of addiction), the government is both very paternalistic and very inconsistent in how it regulates the distribution of pharmaceuticals. On the one hand, with respect to dietary supplements, there’s no regulation at all even though these are powerful drugs. On the other hand, with respect to over-the-counter medications, purchase is easy and we rely on warning labels to inform consumers. On the third hand, certain cold medications that used to be over the counter now are subject to strict limits because we want to prevent people from using them to produce meth, which gets produced anyway. On the fourth hand, prescription medications require a doctor’s permission and a pharmacist to sell them to you. On the fifth hand, pharma companies manipulate patents and OTC rules to keep medicines in the prescription system to maximize profits without regard to whether a prescription really makes sense.

A better system would be to allow Americans much more freedom to obtain the medications they want, and rely on warnings to disclose important risks. Reserve prescriptions, in general, for the absolutely most dangerous cases where a drug really shouldn’t be taken without a doctor’s prescription. There’s no reason the Pill, Viagra, Sudafed, Plan B, RU486, or many other things should be so difficult to get. And then maybe we can take the politics out of at least some of these issues, as it is the government’s scheduling power that allows it to deny access and discriminate against women in this way.

Yeah, the irony is that obstacles to obtaining plan B are much more harmful to “good girls” who got carried away in the heat of the moment or, worse, rape victims who were not planning to have sex at all than they are to those harlots who wanted to have sex and planned it in advance and will be able to get a hold of some condoms or the pill or whatever.

This really needs to be shouted from the rooftop and plastered all over the Internet. It’s not like anti-choicers would be swayed - they literally do not care about the well-being of rape victims - but hopefully people on the fence will see the immorality of the anti-contraception stance when you frame it in these terms.

I try to point it out to people. A pharmacist would rue the day s/he denied plan B to my slutty ass, but someone who is properly ashamed of their sexuality might not have the confidence to jump through hoops or go somewhere else after having to take the walk of shame out of the store empty-handed.

I will never understand how a fetus gets claim to all of these rights, but once a child is born, it’s no better than a slave or property to The Parents. Or, as we all know how it really works, The Father. The daughter’s virginity is owned by The Father.

I like it: Plan B is to teenagers exploring their sexual nature as seat belts are to teenagers exploring the open roads.

On the fourth hand, prescription medications require a doctor’s permission and a pharmacist to sell them to you.

And depending on your insurance coverage and the medication in question, you may not be able to get it at the local pharmacy. My husband’s coverage at work changed a couple years ago so that maintenance medications (which we’re both on) have to be ordered via mail. The price is better than it used to be, and overall it’s less hassle, but we’ve had problems with getting the next batch before the current one is gone.

Sebelius’s unprecedented decision to overrule the FDA on this is the wrong decision. I think she knows that. I think Obama knows that, if he had a hand in this. They are not stupid people, and so they can’t not know that. 

You question is “How did this happen?” It happened because this is sort of the dark side of No Drama Obama. For many people (and I’ve been guilty of this, too), when they say they’re “not into drama” what they mean is that they are avoidant and conflict averse. And Obama simply doesn’t want to pick a fight, so he and Sebelius are shutting down the FDA plan because they don’t want to be involved in a media and political fight over the issue.

Tyro—that is my read of Obama too.

Amen. I have a post on having these conversations, though I wrote it pre-Sebelius, coming up on Goodmen Project tonight or tomorrow.

Tyro:
You are 100% right.  How often does President Obama pick a fight with the GOP?  Just look at HCR, among many other things.  And it will be 99.9% men who try and excuse the President from this bullsh-t decision.

I think the decision has something to do with the upcoming case from the Center for Reproductive Rights against the FDA for contempt of court (since 2009 the FDA has been under a court order to lift restrictions from all ECPs, an order the FDA has been ignoring so far). Something like a preemptive move against the lawsuit?

In any case, two important points that need to be disseminated far and wide:

1) The time to buy ECP is when you don’t need it and have it handy when you do.

2) Forget pharmacies, Amazon.com is your friend: i-Pill, Plan B One-Step, Postinor, and Next Choice.

I kind of want to set up a volunteer group of adult women who will act as Big Sisters to teen girls who need Plan B and can’t/don’t want to talk to their parents, and will pick it up for them. Like…you register as a Plan B Fairy Godmother with your zip code and how far you can travel, and then girls who need it and can’t get it on their own can search their area for a partner-in-not-crime-but-they’re-making-it-seem-like-one.

I’m sure there’s 80 million things wrong or not feasible about it, but it popped into my head and I’m ticked off and frustrated enough to want to do it.

This entire post is great. (Though, in fairness, the idea of my kids driving actually scares the shit out of me.)

I am sorry, but this decision is quite simply a moral outrage and completely intolerable.  I expect Republicans to be anti-women, but I expect Democrats to at least go through the motions.

Well, I dunno, Amanda. I’ve always thought the whole “They’re going to do it whether we like it or not” was due to concerns about STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptives don’t always work.

>>This could have been simply presented as: This prevents abortion.
He should have just said critics who oppose making Plan B over-the-counter are pro-abortion.

It is possible that Obama is one of those liberal-leaning guys that suddenly gets all nervous when it is the thought of HIS daughters who might need it.  They’re young now, but they’ll get older.

Seebach, the worst part is this: The fetus is irrelevant.

Plan B has nothing to do with fetuses. Or embryos. Or hell, even fertilized eggs. It works strictly by preventing ovulation. There’s been extensive scientific research to show this. The notion that it “kills” fertilized eggs is a straight up lie, and certainly it’s a lie that it’s an abortion. It works simply by preventing ovulation before the sperm can get to the Fallopian tubes. No more,  no less. Which is why taking it in a timely manner is so important.

Ema, the rundown on CRR and their role in this is this:

*CRR got the federal judge to rule that EC should be available OTC.
*The FDA ignored, and as far as I know, is still ignoring that ruling. I assume that means Sebelius and Obama are also in violation of the law. But that’s something you’ll have to ask a lawyer about. Right now, I don’t know where that stands.
*Meanwhile, the drug company that makes Plan B filed a request that their drug—-and only their drug, no competitors—-be made available OTC.
*The FDA, finally coming around the science, gave the manufacturers of Plan B their way on this.
*Sebelius overruled that.

As for the actual enforcement and violation of a judge’s order thing stands, I do not know. We’ll see.

I really don’t understand why this has caused so much distress to our team.

I’m a guy who thinks that Plan B should be freely available to anyone who wants it.  That said, I wonder about a sentence like this “the adolescents who are being kept from preventing pregnancy”.

Is there any reason to believe that we have adolescents who are being kept from preventing pregnancy based on the 17 year old requirement?  If there is some data showing that I really would be interested in seeing it.

I believe that any loosening on the current mild restrictions (you can buy it on the internet) would have a huge political impact of galvanizing the right.  It would be on FOX News for a month framed around how liberals want your daughters to have sex.  At the same time, it would likely have a very small impact in the real world.  I believe that the $50 price tag for plan b is more likely to prevent an adolescent girl from getting plan b than the current restrictions. 

Please tell me why I’m wrong so I can get a clue.

“The problem comes back to the phrase, “They’re going to do it whether we like it or not.”

This is a favorite phrase of liberals defending everything from sex education to condom access for teenagers. It buys into the assumption that teenage sexuality is automatically illicit”

I disagree. I see it on the same level as when liberals resort to “women will get abortions whether they’re legal or not”. The person saying this, 9 times out of 10, is pro teenage sexuality/pro-choice.  It’s an attempt to get someone who is obviously viscerally disgusted by those things to think about laws in pragmatic terms (the idea being so at least their views, though they may continue to harbour them, won’t end up leading to anti-choice/anti-sex legislation). Whether this tactic has a greater success rate than just saying over and over again “you’re wrong to be viscerally disgusted by teen sex” is debatable, but at least to the person using it, getting a conservative to not vote against access to contraception is the more immediate goal than causing a wholesale change in their attitudes.

And might I add that the “whether you like it or not” bit normally comes at the end of a rant telling you why you should be ok with it in the first place. So people aren’t usually sacrificing other lines of argument.

One of the overall things I’ve noticed about this issue is that a lot of parents have come to basically fetishize childhood, to the point that they’re essentially trying to erase the concept of “teenager”.

See, it USE to be that the teenage years were a *transitional* period between childhood and adulthood. Kids were growing up, and gradually obtaining more and more adult responsibilities and freedoms.

But now, teenagers are considered “children”, little different from grade-schoolers, with the attendant reduction in the freedoms allowed to them (see also the 50 bajillion flaming hoops teens must now jump through to get licenses, and I think you’ve talked before about parents never letting their teens walk anywhere anymore, or something).

From that perspective, fucking is something adults do that is inappropriate for children to do, so CLEARLY it’s inappropriate for teens to fuck. Instead, they must stay chaste, like children are supposed to, until they turn 18 and become adults. (As a side note, there is nothing I hate more than the phrase “babies having babies”.  If they’re old enough to be fucking, THEY ARE NOT F-ING “BABIES”.)

Likewise, “the state” should not be teaching people’s “children” about sex/reproduction in any detail or STD’s/contraception/protection at all. Because that’s totes unsuitable for “children” to be learning about.

Great post.  And THANK YOU.  I thought I had stumbled into a nest of forced birthers today, given the strident defense of—yes, by mostly self-identified liberal men—“the argument that this ruling was addressing a parent’s right to know.” 

It’s funny to me how judgemental I was of teen sexuality as a teen compared to how I am now.  Well, funny, but also perfectly understandable.  No one should go through their teen years like I did.  It sucked.

Scary how I thought of how stupid “babies having babies” is right before reading Ruby’s comment on how stupid it is.

And then I got really creeped out that the same culture that spawned that phrase also came up with “sugar baby” and “sugar daddy/momma”.

Parents are delusional if they think they can control their child’s sexuality, be it tiger moms, home schoolers, or liberals, biology will win. It would be like attempting to keep your child away from salt, sugers and fats. It would be cruel, usual and ultimate futile to try, and you would probably end with an either obese or anorexic adult. Pity that teenagers don’t get to vote on such policies.

(shamelessly borrowing from a point made by a Stephen Fry)

Self-described liberal guy here who does agree with Amanda’s point here.  If I had a teenaged daughter, I’d make sure she had Plan B.  (She’d probably be creeped out that her father would think about that!

Is anybody actually doubting that this was 100% Obama’s call? Cabinet secretaries simply do not make high-profile decisions like this without orders from the White House. (Or if they do, they suddenly discover a need to spend more time with their families.)

Shameful, is what this is. Another in the long series of inexplicable panders to people who wouldn’t vote for Obama even if hell DID freeze over.

While I am disappointed that teens won’t have easy access to EC, Sibelius clearly stated her reason for denying OTC status:  the manufacturer, Teva, had failed in the application process to provide enough evidence that label comprehension had been tested for women under the age of 17.

Sibelius wrote: “Today’s action reflects my conclusion that the data provided as part of the actual use study and the label comprehension study are not sufficient to support making Plan B One-Step available to all girls 16 and younger, without talking to a health care professional… I do not believe enough data were presented to support the application to make Plan B One-Step available over the counter for all girls of reproductive age.”

“The science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use. However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately,” Sebelius wrote. “I do not believe that Teva’s application met that standard. The label comprehension and actual use studies did not contain data for all ages for which this product would be available for use.”

If Teva can provide data that shows 12 year olds can understand the label, perhaps Sibelius can reverse her decision.

What I don’t get is, if someone can’t understand a label, how are they going to understand a prescription?

While I am disappointed that teens won’t have easy access to EC, Sibelius clearly stated her reason for denying OTC status:  the manufacturer, Teva, had failed in the application process to provide enough evidence that label comprehension had been tested for women under the age of 17.

So you know more than the FDA’s panel of actual medical experts? Whose UNANIMOUS decision Sebelius reversed? Total horseshit when you weigh that “concern” against the KNOWN health risks of pregnancy, especially for such a young girl. No, this was 100% about politics, and I suspect Sebelius’s marching orders came straight from David Axelrod.

Oh, and fuck you.

What I don’t get is, if someone can’t understand a label, how are they going to understand a prescription?

Or pregnancy.  Or labor.  or child rearing. 

Total horseshit when you weigh that “concern” against the KNOWN health risks of pregnancy, especially for such a young girl.

THe day any politician gives a shit aboult young girls is the day pigs start flying directly out of hell.

I believe that any loosening on the current mild restrictions (you can buy it on the internet) would have a huge political impact of galvanizing the right.  It would be on FOX News for a month framed around how liberals want your daughters to have sex.  At the same time, it would likely have a very small impact in the real world.  I believe that the $50 price tag for plan b is more likely to prevent an adolescent girl from getting plan b than the current restrictions.

See, I think the lesson of Fox News generally is that it doesn’t matter what Democrats and/or liberals do, conservatives are going to say we’re bad, bad, bad. They’ll manufacture something to be outraged about lacking something to be outraged about.

Karl Rove (presumably, that was him) was right about claim to being able to create reality. He was just wrong about how far that went. It’s actually bounded by what can happen inside the heads of people who are influenced by our media and culture. It didn’t extend to making Iraq have chemical weapons and bio weapons or a nuclear program. It didn’t extend to making Europe fall in line. And it didn’t extend to making Iraqis who were not affected by the U.S. media to greet us as liberators. But they were able to get allegedly serious, informed people to consider the possibility Iraq might attack the U.S. with balsa wood planes armed with nerve gas. Colin Powell included that in a presentation in the U.N. and no one laughed.

The conservative noise machine doesn’t need an FDA decision to convince those wishing to be convinced that Obama is out to make it easier for your little girl to have sex. They’re going about the business of that whether this decision goes one way or the other.

The impact of this is politics is actually mostly about offense. A Republican attack on Obama over this needs to be met with an attack on Republicans, preferably one that ups the ante (ala the Untouchables).

He could respond (or have his press secretary or designated congressional attack dog):
“Republicans can’t find a few votes to pass a jobs bill, but they’ve got plenty of time to try make sure the abortion rate goes up.”

And repeat and promulgate as talking points.

My fantasy world version would be:
“My guess is they’d feel differently if middle-aged men could pregnant whoring themselves out to Wall Street.”

While I am disappointed that teens won’t have easy access to EC, Sibelius clearly stated her reason for denying OTC status:  the manufacturer, Teva, had failed in the application process to provide enough evidence that label comprehension had been tested for women under the age of 17.
Comment #42: Pandagoner on 12/08 at 09:50 AM

Oh Pandagoner, you’ve swallowed the bullshit.  This is not required of any other OTC drugs so there is no reason it should be required of Plan B.

But that leaves the question, why did the Obama administration run away from Plan B?  Despite thousands of articles and facts and so on to the contrary, there’s a huge number of people who think it is chemical abortion.

Why is that?  Well, there’s a rhetorical practice that we should remember—stating things in a positive way rather than denying someone else’s claim using their words.  Nixon’s “I am not a crook” was a rhetorical error.

In this case, the statement “Plan B is not abortion” has the word abortion in it, so those two words are now connected even if the person you’re talking to never heard that spurious argument.  For some people just the fact that you’re denying it “proves” you admit it, because subconsciously now they associate you with what you’re denying.

I’m not sure how we can get around that.  “Plan B is contraception only” maybe?

Anyway.  So along with not wanting the government to backstop contraceptive failure or failure to use contraception or goddammit RAPE involving teenagers, they don’t want the government giving their underage daughters “free abortion on demand”  (rhetorically that “on demand” has to be in there, because you need the image of angry feminist women who want to kill babies).

Most of the people reading this blog can pick apart arguments, understand details, and weigh factual evidence.  There is a huge segment of the population who can’t so they don’t know how to judge an argument and instead sees these as big hazy clouds where people say things and other people say opposite things and there’s no way to tell who’s right.  Those people just look at the shape or color of the cloud, or see who’s in the cloud already, and if they like that person or if other noises coming from the cloud match up with their prejudices, fears, or hopes, that’s the cloud they like.

The winger cloud emits noises like “we love babies!” and “let’s go back to the way things were” and “they are trying to steal our children’s innocence!”  So when they say “don’t let them poison your children with abortion drugs,” it works to frighten people.

My son was horrified, but I told him that I have some on hand.  I don’t think he and his gf are sexually active yet, and he does have some condoms available, but I don’t mess with this shit.

Being pregnant is very risky the younger the pregnant person gets - and putting the most vulnerable and most likely to be abused teens at risk is simply gobsmackingly horrifying.

Note that the young teens who *might* be pregnant are the most likely to have been fucked over by male relatives, too - which adds a whole layer of bullshit to “can’t they just talk to their parents”?

Unfortunately, way too many lefty-liberal parents engage in the conceit of communication - even if they would be rational about it, this is private shit!

I happen to know a thing or three about the logistics of getting Plan B (because of my job) and if a minor needs to get it, they don’t have to talk to their parents to get it, they just have to talk to ANYONE who is 17 or older OR any person liscensed to write a prescription (like a clinician at Planned Parenthood).  If you have the money to get it from a pharmacy, you can hand that money to any friend, relative, or random adult walking into a pharmacy and have them buy it for you.  If you don’t have the money, many Planned Parenthood clinics are able to offer it at a reduced cost and will write anyone a prescription on-the-spot with very few questions asked.  A minor willing to do the legwork can get the medication without their parents being involved.

It is my position that the government just shouldn’t be requiring extra legwork for anyone.  Taking the time to go through the extra steps makes the medication less effective and increases the embarassment associated with a situation like that and there is absolutely no good reason for it.

Remember, most liberal guys are still pretty misogynistic.

I think Amanda’s read on this is correct—Sebelius’s decisions, while deeply cowardly, is also supermajority popular.  Obama’s one unpopular policy is total impunity for banksters and torturers, and he’s not going to add to that.

I have almost this exact same conversation when I talk to people who believe they are good parents about other issues as well, like school reform.  They are almost constitutionally unable to understand that lots of children just don’t have parents who are as nice and loving as they believe they are to their own children.  It’s as if admitting the existence of any child in America with a less than perfect life is felt as an indictment of their parenting skills.

It has become increasingly difficult to get the point across, Hey, these laws aren’t meant to change your life, they’re meant to make the lives of people in bad situations a tiny bit more manageable.

Obama’s one unpopular policy is total impunity for banksters and torturers, and he’s not going to add to that.

I wish I could agree that impunity for torturers is unpopular. But I really don’t think so.

The irony, of course, is that girls who were able to talk about sex openly and rationally with their parents probably have parents who would take them to their OB-GYN to get a prescription for the Pill, so that Plan B wouldn’t be necessary.  Do I think that teens should be able to talk to their parents about sex?  Yes, actually, I think it would be an ideal world in which teens had frank discussions about sex with their parents or other trusted adults before having it, in which those adults would give them accurate information about contraception and STDs, as well as talk to them about the emotional and ethical issues surrounding sex.  But we don’t live in an ideal world, and kids who can’t have that kind of talk with their parents shouldn’t be punished for it by being denied access to contraception or accurate information.

This is a really good argument against the “whether you like it or not” tactic. Frankly, I don’t think that what a 16-year-old consensually does in the bedroom is any of his/her parents’ beeswax, whether those parents are awesome non-judgy liberal parents or religious zealots. While in an ideal world we’d all be less squicked out by sex in the first place and no doubt more teens would feel comfortable talking to their parents or other adults about it, I also think there’s an overall privacy right at play here as well. I’m particularly disturbed by the degree to which children are increasingly treated as incapable of making any decisions for themselves, even older teens.

I think Obama’s position that, when it comes to ECPs, scientific integrity is out and the old, reliable “how I feel about it in my tummy” is in needs to be pointed out:

Obama says as a father of two daughters, the government should “apply some common sense” to rules when it comes to over-the-counter medication.

Sure, the FDA does not require studies on 11 yo for any other OTC meds but who cares when feelings are involved:

Obama says Sebelius was concerned a 10- or 11-year-old could get the medication, which could have an adverse effect. Obama says “most parents would probably feel the same way.”

Because, clearly, Sebelius’ concerns trump scientific evidence:

FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg made clear that the decision is highly unusual. She said her agency’s drug-safety experts had carefully considered the question of young girls and she had agreed that Plan B’s age limit should be lifted.

“There is adequate and reasonable, well-supported and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential,” Hamburg wrote.

I kind of want to set up a volunteer group of adult women who will act as Big Sisters to teen girls who need Plan B and can’t/don’t want to talk to their parents, and will pick it up for them. Like…you register as a Plan B Fairy Godmother with your zip code and how far you can travel, and then girls who need it and can’t get it on their own can search their area for a partner-in-not-crime-but-they’re-making-it-seem-like-one.

There was an organization like that called Emergency Kindness, but they seem to be gone from the internet. There’s also a Facebook group called “Emergency Contraception For Minors” but they don’t seem active.

In 2005, I volunteered—online—to be an adult who would buy Plan B for any teenager who needed it.

No longer remember the site, but despite being long passed the need for Plan B myself, I’m not to blame for any of this.

Also recently advised a young woman (above 17) who’d had unprotected sex with a married man on getting Plan B from a pharmacy—she’d barely heard of it (thank you, no sex education in schools!)

They are almost constitutionally unable to understand that lots of children just don’t have parents who are as nice and loving as they believe they are to their own children.

I had an exchange a few years back with a LiveJournal friend (who I’ll call the Nice Christian Lady) on the topic of parental notifications, and she just couldn’t understand the difference between “the govt says that teenagers don’t have to inform their parents about X” and “teenagers are forbidden by the govt to inform their parents about X”. I put it down to the authoritarian mindset that crops up at the oddest times.

Sebelius’ decision is completely inexcusable and thoroughly disappointing.

This is a really good argument against the “whether you like it or not” tactic. Frankly, I don’t think that what a 16-year-old consensually does in the bedroom is any of his/her parents’ beeswax, whether those parents are awesome non-judgy liberal parents or religious zealots.

Well, as a theoretical matter, yeah, teenagers should be able to explore their sexuality and healthy parenting would include encouraging them to do it in a safe and responsible manner.

Where the rubber meets the road (OK, bad cliche there), however, there’s definitely a lot of really bad teenage sex, involving coercion, inequality, exploitation, predatory older guys, etc. The reality is that the way it is practiced it’s often far from the idealized notion of teenagers learning about their bodies and learning how to share intimacy with each other. And with respect to that sort of sex, a rhetoric of harm reduction seems to me to be appropriate—they are, indeed, going to do that anyway, and we want them to have the ability to prevent pregnancy when they do.

So I think both rhetorical strains are fine.

I kind of want to set up a volunteer group of adult women who will act as Big Sisters to teen girls who need Plan B and can’t/don’t want to talk to their parents, and will pick it up for them. Like…you register as a Plan B Fairy Godmother with your zip code and how far you can travel, and then girls who need it and can’t get it on their own can search their area for a partner-in-not-crime-but-they’re-making-it-seem-like-one.

There was an organization like that called Emergency Kindness, but they seem to be gone from the internet. There’s also a Facebook group called “Emergency Contraception For Minors” but they don’t seem active.

I suspect the reason is that procuring prescription drugs for someone who cannot possess or take such drugs without a prescription is a federal crime.  I applaud the sentiment, but putting together an online group for this purpose, with traceable members, would appear to be a very foolish thing to do.

What a farce.  You’ll say anything to avoid blaming Obama for anything, won’t you?  Don’t pin this on me.

Oh, I see:  if a teenager can’t understand a label on a bottle, we should trust her to carry a fetus to term and giving birth to it.

Sebastian, they are not perscription for adults and the fact that men can buy them sort of implies that giving buying on behalf of someone else.

I’ll say the same thing that I say whenever any topic of this nature comes up.

We, as a society, hate youth. We despise it. And we act as such.

Before you’ll see a society comfortable with teen sexuality, you’ll see the voting age lowered, the drinking age lowered, and schools starting at a more reasonable (I.E. Later) hour.

No, it’s not about teenage sexuality.  It’s about women’s/girls’ sexuality.  Boys don’t need a prescription for condoms, and nobody’s overruling a decision to make them non-prescription with a patently stupid excuse, like saying boys under 17 might not understand the latex allergy warnings so it’s dangerous to make condoms available.  Teenage (heterosexual) boys’ sexuality is encouraged, even enforced, not punished.  There’s no epidemic of Mother-Son “Purity Ball” balls.  It’s the War On Women, plain and simple.  And it’s not my fault for not phrasing some argument correctly, it’s just easy right now to hate women and score political points from that.  The “teen” sexuality argument would have to go something like “teenage girls should be as free to fuck and as free to be happy about it as teenage boys are presumed to be” and that’s not going to fly, for the obvious reasons of including “girls” and “free” in the same sentence.

Most 15 and 16 year olds know 17 year olds. Some will be too embarrassed, but most will probably ask a friend or sibling.

@ SteveLaBonne:  Nothing like some respectful discourse. 

@ oldfeminist:  Label comprehension is an FDA requirement on OTC drugs.

Of course this drug should be available to anyone who needs it, who can follow the dosage instructions, and whose health won’t be compromised by taking it.  If it’s a label comprehension issue, then Teva should easily be able to rectify that.  If they already know it’s safe for 11 year olds, then send over the data already. 

If Teva gives Sibelius the data that counters her objections, we’ll see by her actions (reversing her decision or not) where the motivations actually lie:  Sibelius required more data than her subordinates, it’s all conspiracy politics, it’s a case of “eew girls have sex dirty whores,” etc..

It’s the same sucky status quo for a while longer as Teva works to reverse the decision.  And they’ll keep trying because they want the increased revenue.

I think my biggest issue with Obama’s statement was “a 10-year-old or 11-year-old going to a drugstore would be able to, alongside bubble gum or batteries, be able to buy a medication that potentially if not used properly can have an adverse effect.”  We’re talking opening a packaging and swallowing ONE pill.  So let’s see, females capable of reproduction usually use Midol, Advil, and Tylenol, among others, as pain relief from PMS/menstruation and they don’t need a prescription to obtain any of those and as whole no one is very concerned about the side effects of those medications.

Adverse reactions to Plan B:  nausea, lower abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, and breast tenderness

Adverse reactions to Midol/Midol PMS:  Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); dark urine or pale stools; fast heartbeat; nervousness or irritability; unusual tiredness; yellowing of the skin or eyes.

Adverse reactions to Advil:  Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; trouble breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); bloody or black, tarry stools; change in the amount of urine produced; chest pain; confusion; dark urine; depression; fainting; fast or irregular heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; mental or mood changes; numbness of an arm or leg; one-sided weakness; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin; ringing in the ears; seizures; severe headache or dizziness; severe or persistent stomach pain or nausea; severe vomiting; shortness of breath; stiff neck; sudden or unexplained weight gain; swelling of hands, legs, or feet; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual joint or muscle pain; unusual tiredness or weakness; vision or speech changes; vomit that looks like coffee grounds; yellowing of the skin or eyes.

Common adverse reactions to Tylenol:  Constipation; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; excitability; headache; loss of appetite; nausea; nervousness or anxiety; trouble sleeping; upset stomach; vomiting; weakness.

Severe adverse reactions to Tylenol:  Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); dark urine; difficulty urinating or inability to urinate; fast or irregular heartbeat; hallucinations; mood or mental changes; pale stools; seizures; severe drowsiness; severe or persistent dizziness, nervousness, lightheadedness, or headache; severe or persistent trouble sleeping; stomach pain; tremor; vision changes; yellowing of skin or eyes.

President Obama, I respectfully submit that you are full of shit.

There is almost too much wrapped up in this for me to address.

First, there is a way too much hand wringing about teen fucking.  I did a little bit, but I wanted to do WAY more.  I see little difference in life outcomes based on who was fucking in high school, but plenty of difference based on who had a kid in high school.  “Abstinence Only” is doubly bad—it makes kids ashamed about fucking, but more likely to make a baby.

Second, there is a massive geneder double standard, where the concern over teen fucking is much more a concern over girl fucking than boy fucking.  And I will admit I am not immune.  My first time was when I was 15, and the woman was 26.  I’m not sure what the legal age of consent was at that time and place, but if this wasn’t statutory rape, it was damn close.  Do I feel traumatized in any way by the experience?  Hell No.  Do I feel I was exploited?  Only in the sense that I hope she got off on it as much as I did.  Was I coerced?  Hell No.  As the night unfolded, with each tiny step of the dance, I tried to balance my skepticism that this would lead where I 100% wanted it, and the undeniable sense that it was heading that way.  I remember the exhilaration I felt when the masks (and the clothes) came off and I knew that it was real.  In other words, while the law may have viewed me as the victim of a felony, I did not and do not.

Yet the thought of my daughter fucking a 26 year old man when she is in the 10th grade repels me.  Part of it is that I had zero chance of getting pregnant, and she might.  Part of it is that she would risk far more societal and peer condemnation than I did.  Part of it is that she still wears tinkerbell pajamas and believes in santa claus, and it is jarring to think of her as being on the cusp of adulthood without being able to experience (and hopefully accept and celebrate) the transition with her.

A big piece of it, though, is that as much as I can acknowledge that it is illogical, I nonetheless react emotionally to the gender dynamic in ways that I can’t put a label on.

Would a 26 year old man and a 15 year old boy, both gay, affect me differently?

What about a 26 year old woman and a 15 year old girl?

There isn’t a none size fits all answer.  I think so much depends on the differences between individuals. 

I feel like it was OK for me, because aside from age, none of power dynamics created a risk that I would be acting out of anything but desire (e.g., she was a kind person who would not have been inclined to retaliate emotionally if I changed my mind, and she didn’t have material power over me by virtue of wealth, social connections, or the ability to advance or impede me in school.  I was a generally confident, mature kid, and in a near-constant state of horniness). 

Not sure where this is going, but the idea that my daughter should be deprived of the opportunity to purchase Plan B promptly, without hassle, and without having to agonize over the dread of telling a grown up who holds power over her and whose reaction she could not know for certain, is just plain wrong.

I guess the bottom line is that I might not be especially comfortable with the idea of my daughter being sexually active in high school, but my discomfort has jack shit to do with whether the law should make it easier or harder for her to avoid getting pregnant.

Pandagoner, that’s exactly what they did.  They did studies on 11-16 year olds, and submitted them.  All the relevant medical societies agree.

Sebelius and Obama are doing *exactly* what Bush did: they are throwing women under the bus for political purposes.  Obama is breaking a campaign pledge to follow science not ideology.  All of their “concerns” were addressed in the fucking studies.  When they say they have concerns about 11 and 12 year old understanding how to use the drug safely, they are ignoring the science that shows otherwise, namely that their “concerns” are founded on bullshit.

Obama is thoroughly uninterested in standing up for women’s rights if there’s a remote chance it might be controversial.  Since women’s rights are still controversial, he’s quite happy to stick with the Rahm Emanuel Plan: who else are they gonna vote for?

#72 Caren, can you point me to a link where you found the info that Teva did in fact test it on 11 to 16 year olds?*  I haven’t been able to find it— I was hoping the FDA application would be public, but the closest I got was that the FDA’s application said “females of child bearing age” which a menstruating 11-year-old is, technically. If Teva tested kids, then I’ll hop on the “under the bus” bandwagon. A kid’s body might react differently than a 25- or a 40-year-old’s, maybe the young ‘uns respond better to it (along the lines of an ER nurse who told me that teens are so much better built for childbearing and childbirth than 30+ somethings). 

* Please know I’m definitely not trying to implement step #1 from derailing for dummies. 

I think the real test for Obama is going to be on the more sinister, rights-limiting non-status-quo issues floating out there (heartbeat bills, parental notification laws, ability to pay for an abortion with one’s own private insurance, etc).

#72 Caren, can you point me to a link where you found the info that Teva did in fact test it on 11 to 16 year olds?*

Wow.  I googled on

    teva 11 to 16 year olds plan b

and the second result was:

http://www.newser.com/article/d9rgdkq80/its-the-morning-after-and-16-year-olds-still-need-prescription-for-emergency-contraception.html

Sebelius didn’t raise safety concerns. She said maker Teva Pharmaceuticals hadn’t proved that the very youngest girls who might try Plan B would understand how to use it properly.

A Teva-funded study tracked 11- to 17-year-olds who came to clinics seeking emergency contraception. Nearly 90 percent of them used Plan B safely and correctly without professional guidance, said Teva Vice President Amy Niemann. But Teva wouldn’t say how many of the youngest girls were part of the study.

This is the whole thing.  They didn’t split out the 11 year olds from the others so apparently this means maybe the 11 year olds were all unable to use Plan B safely and correctly.

If you want to get really technical about it yeah maybe this is a valid concern.  But really it’s not.  I suspect any other medication would get an approval.  This shows that 90 percent of girls under 18 can use it safely and correctly.

#74 I must’ve been overcomplicating or using too many keywords. 

A lot of other sources conflated the concerns of label comprehension with actual product safety, but in that last quoted sentence, it scales it all back to whether Sibelius thought the sample was size big enough, since Teva didn’t provide how many young women used it. 

10% incorrect use could’ve all been amongst 11 year olds?  If applicants do provide results by age group,  they could apply to make it OTC for 12 or 13 and older, or whatever.  Although that would be hard to enforce: 12 year olds probably don’t have or carry a govt-issued photo id. Maybe that’s part of why they originally chose 17.

With the news that came out today/yesterday about Bayer/Yasmin withholding key blood clot information from the FDA, along with all the usual politics surrounding repro health, it’s not surprising that Sibelius is being ultra careful in this BC/sex/repro health minefield. Of course, that caution comes at the expense of young women.

10% incorrect use could’ve all been amongst 11 year olds? 
Comment #75: Pandagoner on 12/10 at 02:04 PM

No.  All the 11-year-olds could have been in the 10 percent who used incorrectly.