In comes the White House, out goes the science...

[Perfection]

1. Considering the drugs effectiveness window and "final option" ideology, this could potentially increase abuse of the drug by users. I want to know what happens if some silly person decides to take 3x, 4x, 5x or even 10x the recommended dose cause they think it will help them not be pregnant even more.

What if some silly person decides to take a whole bottle of painkillers for a really bad headache?

Oh no! We cannot allow that! Nanny state to the rescue!

 

[Perfection]

Sure I did. I stand by any pharmicist for their right to not sell whatever to whomever for whatever reason they deem fit.

Pharmacists in the vast majority (probobly all) 1st world nations are liscenced and regulated by the government. As such they are required to fullfill thier role in the medical system. Moral objections are not a legally acceptable excuse for not fulfilling that role.

 

[MobBoss]

1. What difference does the rate of pregnancy make? Are you suggesting that because it was high, that there should be even FEWER ways of preventing it?

Because the statistics show that the push for sex ed and more widespread use of condoms actually had the OPPOSITE effect than what was intended. Kids were lured into a false sense of sexual security that using a condom meant sex was without peril and yet, they would still manage to screw it up and get someone pregnant anyway.

2. I don't know where you get your statistics from, because the highest rate of teen pregnancy was in the 1950's, BEFORE oral contraception was invented. (it was invented in the early 1960's) The rate began to fall in the 1990's.

Actually, from what I was able to find it was highest in the 60s. Guess it had something to do with the "summer of love"

3. This has never been an issue of teen pregnancy,

The teen pregnancy rate has never been an issue of teen pregnancy? Oh kay.

Show me studies that demonstrate that teens whose parents are more involved in their lives have fewer pregnancies than teens whose parents are less involved. Otherwise, you're blowing it out your rear.

Aw come on....its common sense (and knowledge) that parents who are involved in the kids lives tend to raise more stable kids. Few pregnancies, less drug use, less arrests.

But to make you happy here is a link on a study on it....taadaaa! (and I didnt make that sound out my rear!): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1789184&dopt=Citation

Would you be one of those people?

Been married for over 20 years and with 3 teenage daughters...what do you think?

 

[MobBoss]

Pharmacists in the vast majority (probobly all) 1st world nations are liscenced and regulated by the government. As such they are required to fullfill thier role in the medical system. Moral objections are not a legally acceptable excuse for not fulfilling that role.

Got this off a medical publication website that would seem to refute your statement.

PIP: Some pharmacists opposed to abortion on moral ground are concerned by having to fill prescriptions for abortifacient drugs like mifepristone (RU-486). The issue of the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill such prescriptions depends on the model of the physician-pharmacist-patient relationship. The libertarian model of pharmacy practice holds that physicians, pharmacists, and patients are bound only by the contract that they freely negotiate with one another, thus the pharmacist has no moral obligation to fill a prescription for mifepristone unless he or she has expressly contracted to do so. The American Pharmaceutical Association's 1981 Code of Ethics does not specify what a pharmacist ought to do in particular circumstances. The right to refuse is strongly supported by the principles of nonmaleficence and respect for autonomy. These are principles of the libertarian model of the pharmacist-patient relationship but are also present in the guild or societal models stressing the duty to avoid harming others. Justification for pharmacists right of refusal appeals to their autonomy rights as members of the moral community rather than the profession of pharmacy. Since the professional right to autonomy is not absolute, moral consideration circumscribe it: it is difficult to argue that a pharmacist who believes that homosexuality is immoral has the right to refuse to fill a prescription for AZT. Even if a person who presents such a prescription is homosexual there is no causal relationship between filling a prescription for AZT and participating in a homosexual act. At the opposite end the libertarians reject the notion of even a basic right to health care. A woman in the above situation would not have a right to the abortifacient drug, so a pharmacist has no duty to dispense it.

 

[Little Raven]

Thats a very weak arguement and entirely controllable by YOU the consumer. Be responsible, get a 6 month supply and keep it handy.

Gosh, what a good idea. I should make sure I have a supply of OxyContin around in case I need it. Do you think my doctor will be happy to write me a script for it if I tell him I’m stockpiling it for the future?

Just how exactly do you think this whole prescription business works, anyway?

Well, in the case of the guy being a butthole sure he compromised it, but not anymore than if someone had stolen her purse the the pills were in her purse compromised it.

Ah, but it’s illegal for the guy to steal her purse. It’s perfectly legal for the pharmacist to tear up her prescription.

So tell me, what recourse does this woman have?

Thats true..whats being deprived are the owners of those establishments being able to make a choice about thier private property.

Surely an erudite person like yourself knows that this argument is bogus. For better or worse, the Supreme Court settled this debate in 1964. Once you open your doors to the public as a commercial establishment, you are no longer entitled to private property protections. Court case after court case has upheld the power of the Interstate Commerce Clause. There is absolutely no question as to property rights in this instance.

Which is why I dont think it unreasonable to upgrade it to over the counter status if it looks like things are going ok...considering the amount of lawsuits we have right now over drugs that were rushed out the public I am willing to err on the side of caution.

Like I said in another thread…that’s why the FDA did years worth of scientific studies to determine whether or not the medicine is safe. If we’re just going to ignore those studies because a guy a message board thinks it’s prudent to wait a while longer, why the hell do we bother paying for them in the first place?

 

[Little Raven]

Odd. I got a database error trying to post this, and now the thread is not showing up as having anything added to it.

 

[MobBoss]

Gosh, what a good idea. I should make sure I have a supply of OxyContin around in case I need it. Do you think my doctor will be happy to write me a script for it if I tell him I’m stockpiling it for the future?

Just how exactly do you think this whole prescription business works, anyway?

Well, when I wrote that I was thinking of when my wife used to be on the pill...she used to get a whole frigging sack of that crap at once and then put it in the bathroom. I assumed that if you got a presciption for the Plan B you went and filled it as you would any normal prescription and have the drug ready for when you need it. Am I missing something?

Ah, but it’s illegal for the guy to steal her purse. It’s perfectly legal for the pharmacist to tear up her prescription. So tell me, what recourse does this woman have?

Maybe my example was bad, but you should get the idea...extraneous forces and all that. As for her recourse, I dunno...give the guy the finger maybe?

Like I said in another thread…that’s why the FDA did years worth of scientific studies to determine whether or not the medicine is safe. If we’re just going to ignore those studies because a guy a message board thinks it’s prudent to wait a while longer, why the hell do we bother paying for them in the first place?

As I replied in the other thread...if our scientific studies were 100% accurate, we wouldnt have these huge drug lawsuits like vioxx and others then would we? We certainly wouldnt have drugs recalled either. Scientific studies are necessary I agree, but you of all people should acknowledge that science isnt always right.

 

[slip79]

Well, when I wrote that I was thinking of when my wife used to be on the pill...she used to get a whole frigging sack of that crap at once and then put it in the bathroom. I assumed that if you got a presciption for the Plan B you went and filled it as you would any normal prescription and have the drug ready for when you need it. Am I missing something?

Yeah... there's no way a doc would give you a prescription for a 6 month supply of the ECP.

 

[Little Raven]

Well, when I wrote that I was thinking of when my wife used to be on the pill...she used to get a whole frigging sack of that crap at once and then put it in the bathroom. I assumed that if you got a presciption for the Plan B you went and filled it as you would any normal prescription and have the drug ready for when you need it. Am I missing something?

Quite a bit, I should think.

Birth control pills are maintenance medication. You are expected to take them regularly over a long period of time. Therefore, they are given out in large batches.

Something like Oxycontin, or the Morning-After Pill, does not work that way. You have to demonstrate a compelling need for the medication in order to get it. You cannot simply squirrel some away for a rainy day. That would sort of defeat the point of getting a prescription for it, after all.

In the case of Plan B, the woman has to go to the doctor, tell him why she needs the pill, pay him, get the script, take it to a pharmacist, hope they aren't a nutcase and that the pharmacy has it in stock, get the medication, and take it. All within a matter of hours.

But of course this will in no way negatively affect the availability of the medication, right?

Maybe my example was bad, but you should get the idea...extraneous forces and all that. As for her recourse, I dunno...give the guy the finger maybe?

And that will keep her from getting pregnant how?

Out of curiosity, since you oppose making this pill legal over the counter, do you at least support legislation mandating that pharmacists comply with doctor's orders when it comes to medication? And if not, do you support any solution to this problem?

As I replied in the other thread...if our scientific studies were 100% accurate, we wouldnt have these huge drug lawsuits like vioxx and others then would we? We certainly wouldnt have drugs recalled either. Scientific studies are necessary I agree, but you of all people should acknowledge that science isnt always right.

The question is not whether or not the FDA is infallible. Obviously they aren't. But they are supposedly the best we've got. If you don't support listening to their studies when it comes to determining the availability of medicine...what do you support? Polling on message boards? Leaving the decision to politicians?

 

[MobBoss]

Something like Oxycontin, or the Morning-After Pill, does not work that way. You have to demonstrate a compelling need for the medication in order to get it. You cannot simply squirrel some away for a rainy day. That would sort of defeat the point of getting a prescription for it, after all.

Why would it defeat the need for getting a prescription pray tell? I would think just being a sexually active female would qualify as someone able to get a prescription...I mean come on, you need a prescription for viagra, but you dont use it until you need it.

In the case of Plan B, the woman has to go to the doctor, tell him why she needs the pill, pay him, get the script, take it to a pharmacist, hope they aren't a nutcase and that the pharmacy has it in stock, get the medication, and take it. All within a matter of hours.

Well thats stupid. I was under the impression that you go to the doc, get cleared for Plan B use way prior to having sex, you fill your prescription, and have it in the medicine locker for those just in case times. Pretty much like any other prescription drug in use today. If no one will give you the drug BEFORE sex, then I see the logic your point, but I can hardly believe that would be the case - its moronic.

Out of curiosity, since you oppose making this pill legal over the counter, do you at least support legislation mandating that pharmacists comply with doctor's orders when it comes to medication?

I am in favor of doctors and pharmacists as well, having a choice in whether they want to dish out drugs that they are morally objected to. I mean thats like forcing a Jehovahs witness lab tech to work exclusively with blood.

And if not, do you support any solution to this problem?

I dont see it as a problem. Find a doc and/or a pharmacist that agrees with your moral outlook and use them routinely.

The question is not whether or not the FDA is infallible. Obviously they aren't. But they are supposedly the best we've got. If you don't support listening to their studies when it comes to determining the availability of medicine...what do you support? Polling on message boards? Leaving the decision to politicians?

Ah. I see. They are the best we got...until they make a decision to make Plan B a prescription drug...then they are caving into political pressure. Tell you what, lets agree to leave the decision up to the FDA seeing as how they are the best we got. They can deal with both the science and the politicians and leave us poor souls to post on our message boards.

 

[Perfection]

Got this off a medical publication website that would seem to refute your statement.

I'm not a libertarian!

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not a libertarian!

Heh, I will go out on a limb here and say I dont think they were talking about the political party...

 

[Little Raven]

Well thats stupid. I was under the impression that you go to the doc, get cleared for Plan B use way prior to having sex, you fill your prescription, and have it in the medicine locker for those just in case times. Pretty much like any other prescription drug in use today. If no one will give you the drug BEFORE sex, then I see the logic your point, but I can hardly believe that would be the case - its moronic.

That is the way it works, and it’s not quite as moronic as it seems. Plan B is not intended to be used as routine birth control. It’s an emergency measure. If doctors give it out willy-nilly to any woman who is thinking about having sex, then they can be construed as supporting it’s use as a casual birth control agent. No doctor is willing to do that, for obvious liability reasons. If you make it over the counter, then the woman who screws herself up by taking too much of it has nobody to sue but herself.

I am in favor of doctors and pharmacists as well, having a choice in whether they want to dish out drugs that they are morally objected to. I mean thats like forcing a Jehovahs witness lab tech to work exclusively with blood.

You don’t think that maybe someone who is a devout Johovah’s witness shouldn’t be a lab tech in a field where they will be expected to handle blood?

Wow. I suppose you also support allowing Muslims who work at meat processing plants to have a choice in whether or not they handle pork products? I mean, you wouldn’t want to offend them or anything.

I dont see it as a problem. Find a doc and/or a pharmacist that agrees with your moral outlook and use them routinely.

Pharmacies in your part of the country obviously work very differently than they do here.

Here, most pharmacies are chain operations. (Walgreens, Eckards, various grocery stores) The pharmacy is not run by a single individual. I never know who I’ll get when I go there. Heck, I don’t know that I’ve ever gotten the same pharmacist twice. So I don’t know how I could find one that shared my moral outlook and use them routinely. What if they weren’t on shift the night I needed the pill?

Ah. I see. They are the best we got...until they make a decision to make Plan B a prescription drug...then they are caving into political pressure. Tell you what, lets agree to leave the decision up to the FDA seeing as how they are the best we got. They can deal with both the science and the politicians and leave us poor souls to post on our message boards.

Dude, you’re smarter than this.

The scientific boards of the FDA are theoretically the best we have, sad though that may be. (and if they aren’t the best we have, then they darn well should be) And the scientific boards studied Plan B, and decided there was no need to make it a prescription drug. 99% of the time, the executive committee of the FDA goes along with whatever the scientists say. (after all, it’s not like the execs know anything the scientists don’t.)

This time, they didn’t. And they didn’t really offer any reason as to why they didn’t. In fact, Janet Woodstock, the FDA's acting deputy commissioner of operations, made it quite clear that the application would be rejected regardless of what the scientific studies found, though she did not elaborate on why.

So if we’re just going to ignore the guys in the lab coats anyway, why the heck are we paying them?

 

[MobBoss]

That is the way it works, and it’s not quite as moronic as it seems. Plan B is not intended to be used as routine birth control. It’s an emergency measure. If doctors give it out willy-nilly to any woman who is thinking about having sex, then they can be construed as supporting it’s use as a casual birth control agent. No doctor is willing to do that, for obvious liability reasons. If you make it over the counter, then the woman who screws herself up by taking too much of it has nobody to sue but herself

Actually, you are mistaken here. Doctors already writ scrips for "casual birth control agents"....my wife used to have cramps so bad she had to get the prescription birth control stuff in order to get her cramps to go away. As for the liability, thats why each and every prescription drug has a recommended use as part of the prescription...you use the drug outside the parameters of its recommended use, you cant sue for anything. Heck, if you could sue for almost ODing on a prescription drug tons of people would have done that by now.

You don’t think that maybe someone who is a devout Johovah’s witness shouldn’t be a lab tech in a field where they will be expected to handle blood?

No no. Followers of the Jehovahs Witness faith have religious issues over the handling of blood. They generally wont donate or opt to receive it as part of a surgery sometimes. My point was I dont think they would like to be forced to work in that part of lab that handles blood if they may have a religous reason to avoid it.

Wow. I suppose you also support allowing Muslims who work at meat processing plants to have a choice in whether or not they handle pork products? I mean, you wouldn’t want to offend them or anything.Pharmacies in your part of the country obviously work very differently than they do here.

Well, that would be very PC of me now wouldnt it. Personally, I dont care if they do or not...but doctors and pharmacists should have the right to not hand out drugs they dont agree with.

Here, most pharmacies are chain operations. (Walgreens, Eckards, various grocery stores) The pharmacy is not run by a single individual. I never know who I’ll get when I go there. Heck, I don’t know that I’ve ever gotten the same pharmacist twice. So I don’t know how I could find one that shared my moral outlook and use them routinely. What if they weren’t on shift the night I needed the pill?Dude, you’re smarter than this.

The good thing about Walgreens drug stores is that there is usually another one about 6 blocks away. Or a Longs drugs right next to it. Come on, we are dealing with hypotheticals here with a whole lot of "if" and "but" in it.

As for all that FDA stuff..."shrug". I have no idea what the inner machinations of that apparatus is. I have no idea at all if the labrats say its ok, but then the tie guys add a prescription to it. But, hey, thats their call. What can ya do? Its the man.....and the man is baaaaad.

All I can say is from my viewpoint - and thats the viewpoint of a conservative right wing christian - that I dont have any "religious" issues myself regarding the drug.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Because the statistics show that the push for sex ed and more widespread use of condoms actually had the OPPOSITE effect than what was intended. Kids were lured into a false sense of sexual security that using a condom meant sex was without peril and yet, they would still manage to screw it up and get someone pregnant anyway.

Again, even if I were to believe this, and I don't, what in the world does this have to do with the over-the-counter sale of Plan B?

Actually, from what I was able to find it was highest in the 60s. Guess it had something to do with the "summer of love"

I don't know where you're pulling these statistics from.

I took the liberty of reviewing the information regarding teen sexuality and pregnancy, even though it has nothing to do with this thread, and I found some interesting facts.

The rate of teenage pregnancy in the US is the highest in the Western world, even though American teens don't have more sex. (The French do! Ha! ) As it turns out, there is more access and education about contraception in the rest of the Western world. Apparently Americans, like you, have this paranoia that mentioning contraception to an adolescent will suddenly make him hornier and go out having more sex. (This is akin to the distorted belief that mentioning suicide to a depressed person will make him want to kill himself.) In the 1990's, there was a decrease in teen pregnancy in the US, although it is still way higher than in the rest of the Western world. 80% of the reason for this, that was cited, was the greater access and awareness of contraceptive methods. It only took 20 years of sex ed to get it to work! The other 20% was increased ambition by teens to succeed in life. Watching all their friends end up on welfare, who got knocked up, made more of an influence than their parents.

The teen pregnancy rate has never been an issue of teen pregnancy? Oh kay.

You brought up teen pregnancy as if it was somehow relevant to this discussion. This thread is about Plan B, which the drug maker wanted to sell over-the-counter, that was struck down by the FDA for political reasons. I have to keep reminding you of this because you have a short memory. You also use the same tactic as many other religious conservatives, in debate, which is to distract the issue by bringing up a tenuously related topic that, in fact, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's called a strawman.

Aw come on....its common sense (and knowledge) that parents who are involved in the kids lives tend to raise more stable kids. Few pregnancies, less drug use, less arrests.

I don't trust the common sense of someone who believes that the existence of contraception makes people hornier. While I can believe that increased parental supervision generally makes for a better raised kid, I wouldn't generalize.

But to make you happy here is a link on a study on it....taadaaa! (and I didnt make that sound out my rear!): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1789184&dopt=Citation

Good to know you can use pubmed. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with it. The article studied the structure of families to determine sexual activity, not whether parents "talked to their children" or not. I knew you wouldn't be able to find such a study because it would be nearly impossible to test "parents talking to children".

As it turns out, the structure of a family (both parents present, or not) is only of secondary influence on girls' behavior, with race of the family being more important. It has no influence on boys' behavior.

This study is not well powered. It is not a randomized trial. It is a "data mining" operation from a survey conducted in 1979. It is actually quite limited because it only surveyed people who were never married between ages 17-19. For all I know, that could leave a lot of people out of the survey that would change the results. It does not ask the question whether parents who interact with their kids caused them to be less sexually active, or have fewer pregnancies. (You do know that's not the same thing, right?) What's more, it didn't ask if access to contraception was an influence. Even more importantly, the survey is from 1979 and the decline in pregnancy came in the 1990's. So the survey doesn't really answer anything.

Been married for over 20 years and with 3 teenage daughters...what do you think?

I think your 3 daughters have more of an influence on your mental state than reason.

 

[Perfection]

Heh, I will go out on a limb here and say I dont think they were talking about the political party...

No, they were talking about the ideology which I don't believe in.

 

[The Yankee]

MobBoss, if you don't allow over-the-counter access to the morning after pill because the 1 in 100,000 idiot would take 10 times the dosage, who is to say that stockpiling prescriptions won't lead to the very same action?

 

[MobBoss]

Again, even if I were to believe this, and I don't, what in the world does this have to do with the over-the-counter sale of Plan B?

That drugs can have a far reaching social impact that does not become known until years down the road.

I don't know where you're pulling these statistics from.

The national center for health statistics, which is part of the CDC. Where are you getting yours?

The rate of teenage pregnancy in the US is the highest in the Western world

Apparently Americans, like you, have this paranoia that mentioning contraception to an adolescent will suddenly make him hornier and go out having more sex.

Not exactly what I said. I said that contraception gives teens a false sense of security in having sex which, when they make a mistake, can result in a pregnancy. Lets face it, teens are just not as responsible as adults regarding this subject...to treat them as adults and expect the same results is a mistake.

(This is akin to the distorted belief that mentioning suicide to a depressed person will make him want to kill himself.)

Yeah, but can anyone really say that doing so is a good idea?

In the 1990's, there was a decrease in teen pregnancy in the US, although it is still way higher than in the rest of the Western world. 80% of the reason for this, that was cited, was the greater access and awareness of contraceptive methods. It only took 20 years of sex ed to get it to work! The other 20% was increased ambition by teens to succeed in life. Watching all their friends end up on welfare, who got knocked up, made more of an influence than their parents.

I am much more apt to believe the increase in ambition in teens to succeed in life as opposed to believe that sex ed made any real difference. In contrast, the culture of the US was changing in the 90s as well..becoming more conservative than from the 60s, 70s and 80s. No doubt that had an impact as well.

You brought up teen pregnancy as if it was somehow relevant to this discussion.

Its relevant to the discussion as pertains to the use of birth control and how it effects the populace. Plan B is a birth control product is it not?

This thread is about Plan B, which the drug maker wanted to sell over-the-counter, that was struck down by the FDA for political reasons.

First of all, you suspect political reasons - the articles I read said the reasons were "suspecious". Can you show me an article that has direct proof it was politically motivated?

I have to keep reminding you of this because you have a short memory.

And you have no idea whats the big deal about sex...your point? I would just prefer it if you kept the personal attacks to a minimum. Lets keep it civil.

I don't trust the common sense of someone who believes that the existence of contraception makes people hornier

Ever see a Trojan Condom commercial? I think that makes my point.

I think your 3 daughters have more of an influence on your mental state than reason.

Oh yeah, having three daughters will certainly have an impact on ones mental state. I have some first hand experience in my interaction with my kids and friends of theirs getting pregnant. Their friends that got pregnant had pretty bad home situations to say the least. While not empirical in nature, my experience tends to support that interaction with your kids does lead to fewer problems with pregnancy, drug use or lawlessness.

 

[Blasphemous]

Well, I think your description of the situation is extreme to say the least. Having someone get a prescription for a drug is hardly ramming the country into the wall.

Like I said, this case is not in itself such an enormous deal for me. It's the mentality that's reflected in these issues that pisses me off. And that mentality is indeed one of ramming the country into the wall.

I have an answer to this. Actually, this drug would probably be BAD for rape victims and here is why. Rape victims already experience a large measure of misplaced shame over their situation...many, many do not ever report it. Dont you think this drug, would encourage the non-reporting of rape even further? I can certainly see where it would promote a "just take the pill and forget it ever happened" attitude. And just like any other prescription drug, if a rape victim goes to a hospital for treatment after a rape, they should give her plan b as part of the treatment - I advocate that 100%. But I certainly would hope that rape victims would go to the hospitals and police and get more rapists convicted instead of just taking a plan b and forgetting it ever happened.

You have a point but it's not a very realistic one. The reality is that a rape victim is not so likely to want to tell anyone, including medical professionals, what happened to her. The reality is that if a girl has to get a prescription to stop herself from carrying the child of the man who assaulted her, she is likely either to be hesitant and not get it in time, or to not get Plan B at all and possibly have an abortion later on. I personally think it's no big problem that she'd have an abortion (as long as it's pretty early on), besides the fact the uneasy effects of pregnancy that would be avoided with Plan B. I'm pretty sure, however, that you think abortion is a kind of murder, so you'd probably want to be more concerned with rape victims avoiding pregnancy.
Remember that even responsible people can do irrational and irresponsible things when they're distressed. You should not be supporting anything with the potential of making life even harder for rape victims. There is nothing that can possibly justify it, even if you really do know better than them what's good for them. Please, consider the reality of the matter. Ask yourself what would truly provide a more managable environment for a distraught young woman.

You dont think avoiding HIV and STDs are more of an issue than avoiding pregnancy? While I may not agree with it, but with an unwanted pregnancy you can get an abortion....once you have HIV well...thats it your done. Thats not ridiculous, thats friggin common sense.

You completely missed the point. This argument is ridiculous because Sophie never said unwanted pregnancy is more of an issue! All she said is the plain truth - pregnancy can still be avoided for a couple of days after unprotected sex, while STDs are pretty much a lost cause once they're in. This is a simple matter of urgency.
I happen to agree whole-heartedly that STDs are a much bigger problem than unwanted pregnancies. For one, pregnancy is not contagious.
Thing is, that's not at all the issue at hand here. The issue is a matter of urgency, and I'll repeat - pregnancy can still be avoided at a point where an STD has already found a host.

EDIT: And I can probably find a couple more examples of ridiculous arguments and strawmen in this thread if you want me to.

 

[Speedo]

Why would it defeat the need for getting a prescription pray tell? I would think just being a sexually active female would qualify as someone able to get a prescription...

Previously by MobBoss:
Lets be real here. We really are talking about having mindless sex..as you put it being "careless" and I think this particular drug will promote that.
----------
Actually it sure is my concern, and it should be all our concerns if we approve a drug that will potentially increase peoples exposure to STDs.

We should give Plan Blue over the counter because it will encourage people to have careless sex, but if you're having sex you should already be qualified to get it?

I think the logic in someone's argument just fell apart.