Obama opposes safe birth control

[Terralthra]

It's not really as cut and dry as that, I don't think. The FDA doesn't say "of all ages," it says "of childbearing potential." Leaving it OTC with no requirements at all means an 8 year-old could buy it, and it's certainly going to have some major side effects on a girl who isn't capable of menstruating yet. When girls have their first period varies wildly, some as young as 9 or 10, many as old as 12 or 13.

The 10 to 11 range Obama cited is pretty much the exact range where the most uncertainty lies.

How exactly do you propose the FDA handle this? Present a bloody tampon when buying? Trust a literal child to know the ramifications of taking a megadose of hormones?

I'm sorry but isn't this a bit of an irrelevant question? How many 10-13 year olds are having sex, really? Most people lose their virginities around 14-16.

ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2009) — As a new mother herself, Brenda Lohman admits to being shocked by the results of a new study she co-authored. It found that among nearly 1,000 low-income families in three major cities, one in four children between the ages of 11 and 16 reported having sex, with their first sexual intercourse experience occurring at the average age of 12.77.

"So if 12 years was the average age here, that meant that some kids were starting at 10 or younger," said Lohman, an Iowa State University associate professor of human development and family studies (HDFS). "A handful of kids reported having sex as early as 8 or 9. We know from our follow-up interviews that one boy who reported having sexual intercourse for the first time at age nine had fathered four children by the time he was 18."

"Those people who say that kids don't have sex at that young of age should think again," she said. "Definitely the age is the most shocking thing about this study."

Tina Jordahl, a former Iowa State HDFS and public policy graduate student who is now a market research specialist with Hospice of Central Iowa, collaborated with Lohman on the study. It analyzes data from the "Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study" -- a six-year longitudinal investigation of low-income families living in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. Their paper, titled "A biological analysis of risk and protective factors associated with early sexual intercourse of young adolescents," was posted online in the Children and Youth Services Review and will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal."So if 12 years was the average age here, that meant that some kids were starting at 10 or younger," said Lohman, an Iowa State University associate professor of human development and family studies (HDFS). "A handful of kids reported having sex as early as 8 or 9. We know from our follow-up interviews that one boy who reported having sexual intercourse for the first time at age nine had fathered four children by the time he was 18."

"Those people who say that kids don't have sex at that young of age should think again," she said. "Definitely the age is the most shocking thing about this study."

Tina Jordahl, a former Iowa State HDFS and public policy graduate student who is now a market research specialist with Hospice of Central Iowa, collaborated with Lohman on the study. It analyzes data from the "Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study" -- a six-year longitudinal investigation of low-income families living in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. Their paper, titled "A biological analysis of risk and protective factors associated with early sexual intercourse of young adolescents," was posted online in the Children and Youth Services Review and will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal.

Interview data for the study was first collected in 1999 on youth between the ages of 10 and 14, and again in 2001. Lohman says she also has data collected in 2006 from the same subjects, who were between 16 and 20 by that time.

Boys having sex earlier, more often than girls

In the study, boys reported their first sexual intercourse at younger ages (averaging 12.48) than girls (13.16). Boys also had nearly 10 percent higher frequency of intercourse than girls and were also more likely to experience sexual debut (20 percent to 14 percent) between the two years when the first two waves of data were collected.

Recent national research has found that 13 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys have had sex by the time they're 16. Lohman says that means the rate of sex among her low-income sample is only slightly higher among the girls, but almost double among the boys.

"The ages [of sexual debut] are a bit younger than the national samples, but not alarmingly so," she said.

African Americans also had 12 percent more early sexual intercourse than whites (29 to 17 percent respectively), although racial differences did not change the age of their first intercourse.
The authors report that periods of instability in family structure and welfare use serve as risk factors for early sexual activity. They found that additional maternal education -- beyond a high school level -- was found to inhibit some of that activity.

"That can be for multiple reasons," Lohman said. "It can be that mothers have better paying jobs and more stable home environment and they're less likely to be in stressful circumstances. It could also be that mothers then have greater cognitive capacities to sort of sit down and discuss the pros and cons of waiting to have sex until you're older."

For that reason, the researchers propose allotting public funding to increase maternal education as a way to reduce early sexual promiscuity among their children.
Juvenile deliquency increases early sexual activity

The study also found the youths' involvement in delinquent acts drastically increases the chances of early sexual activity.

Because of the gender differences in sexual debut, the authors also urge more gender-specific prevention programs that are implemented at earlier ages, especially among high risk populations.
"It may be that boys and girls, starting at younger ages, should have these programs that are designed separately by gender before they're moved back together over time," Lohman said. "And yes, they must start much, much younger than they do now. You have to start before those young kids -- 10 or even younger -- start becoming sexually active."

Lohman is currently working on research to determine the relationship between obesity and teen sexuality. She hopes to publish results from that study within the year.

Interview data for the study was first collected in 1999 on youth between the ages of 10 and 14, and again in 2001. Lohman says she also has data collected in 2006 from the same subjects, who were between 16 and 20 by that time.

Boys having sex earlier, more often than girls

In the study, boys reported their first sexual intercourse at younger ages (averaging 12.48) than girls (13.16). Boys also had nearly 10 percent higher frequency of intercourse than girls and were also more likely to experience sexual debut (20 percent to 14 percent) between the two years when the first two waves of data were collected.

Recent national research has found that 13 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys have had sex by the time they're 16. Lohman says that means the rate of sex among her low-income sample is only slightly higher among the girls, but almost double among the boys

"The ages [of sexual debut] are a bit younger than the national samples, but not alarmingly so," she said.

African Americans also had 12 percent more early sexual intercourse than whites (29 to 17 percent respectively), although racial differences did not change the age of their first intercourse.

The authors report that periods of instability in family structure and welfare use serve as risk factors for early sexual activity. They found that additional maternal education -- beyond a high school level -- was found to inhibit some of that activity.

"That can be for multiple reasons," Lohman said. "It can be that mothers have better paying jobs and more stable home environment and they're less likely to be in stressful circumstances. It could also be that mothers then have greater cognitive capacities to sort of sit down and discuss the pros and cons of waiting to have sex until you're older."

For that reason, the researchers propose allotting public funding to increase maternal education as a way to reduce early sexual promiscuity among their children.

Juvenile deliquency increases early sexual activity

The study also found the youths' involvement in delinquent acts drastically increases the chances of early sexual activity.

Because of the gender differences in sexual debut, the authors also urge more gender-specific prevention programs that are implemented at earlier ages, especially among high risk populations.
"It may be that boys and girls, starting at younger ages, should have these programs that are designed separately by gender before they're moved back together over time," Lohman said. "And yes, they must start much, much younger than they do now. You have to start before those young kids -- 10 or even younger -- start becoming sexually active."

Lohman is currently working on research to determine the relationship between obesity and teen sexuality. She hopes to publish results from that study within the year.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're talking about a country where it once required Supreme Court decisions to allow ADULTS to purchase birth control without hindrance. Specifically Giswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972.

No PotUS is going to OK selling OTC after-sex contraception to minors in such a nation. Yes, it's political. It's also nothing new in the US. While America has undergone considerable social change in the past few decades it's still a collection of uptight sexual prudes compared to Europe.

You dont seem to understand the precedent setting issue. Congress, or state legislatures have banned things like contraceptives. However, the FDA is supposed to be a non-partisan civil service branch of the government. This is not like that. This would be like the elected or appointed comptroller stepping in to void someone's drivers license for political reasons.

FDA denies regulatory approval for your drug, even though said FDA is almost fully Captured, meaning your drug is REALLY fucking terrible? Well, you can now bribe lobby the Secretary of HHS. That is the precedent being set.

[Serafina]

In retrospect, "Obama opposes birth control for adolescents" or "Obama opposes safe birth control for adolescents" would be a more accurate threat title.

Most european countries make Plan-B equivalents (emergency contraceptives) available without prescription. This is unfortunately not the case in Germany, but keep in mind that children over the age of 14 have the legal right to visit a doctor without their parents knowledge or consent, so emergency contraceptives can still be acquired without their parents knowledge.
Meanwhile, Great Britain and France have (some?) schools hand out emergency contraceptives to students if necessary.

The World Health Organizations recommends making emergency contraceptives available without prescription.

Of course you can abuse emergency contraceptives, but that is the case with almost everything you can get without a prescription (and also with things you can get with a prescription). In cases where the proper usage of the drug is difficult or hard to understand, or if it easily causes dependencies, that is actually an argument against making it available without prescription, but as determined by the WHO, the FDA and other national health agencies, that is not the case with emergency contraceptives.

[Broomstick]

You dont seem to understand the precedent setting issue.

Yes, actually I do understand it. I also long ago lost any illusion that the FDA is somehow non-partisan. It's not, and hasn't been for decades, if ever. I don't see it as much of a leap, that's all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You dont seem to understand the precedent setting issue.

Yes, actually I do understand it. I also long ago lost any illusion that the FDA is somehow non-partisan. It's not, and hasn't been for decades, if ever. I don't see it as much of a leap, that's all.

Well, the thing is, it is not partisan... just fully Captured by the industry it regulates (like all of our other regulatory agencies). This just... piles on yet another precedent that permits them ways around the damn regs. Dont like the result? Lobby the secretary! Ger him/her on your payroll, offer lucrative positions when their term is up etc. The step is not large, it is just one more step in the direction of a completely ineffective regulatory agency.

[Col. Crackpot]

a minor cannot purchase over the counter psudoephedrine cold medicine without an adult... and for good reason. I get the abortion rights argument, but do we really want 14 year olds self medicating without any sort of adult or medical supervision?

[Alyrium Denryle]

a minor cannot purchase over the counter psudoephedrine cold medicine without an adult... and for good reason. I get the abortion rights argument, but do we really want 14 year olds self medicating without any sort of adult or medical supervision?

That is because they will use it to get high, or make meth.

There is no recreational use for plan B. As a result, there is far less potential for abuse. Having a really really angry Period is not a teenage girl's notion of a good time.

[Serafina]

a minor cannot purchase over the counter psudoephedrine cold medicine without an adult... and for good reason. I get the abortion rights argument, but do we really want 14 year olds self medicating without any sort of adult or medical supervision?

By that logic, you shouldn't let 14-year olds buy ANY medication without adult or medical supervision.
No Tylenol for example, because that can easily kill you if you OD.
And no Aspirin either, because that too can have nasty effects.
And a ton of other OTC drugs either, because guess what - practically ALL drugs with medical effects can used wrongly.

Really, i don't see anyone buying Plan B just for fun, or taking it in more than the recommended dose. And FDA and WHO-studies, as well as experience from numerous countries that DO sell it without prescription to minors, tell us that nothing bad will happen if minors can buy it (or even if they get it for free).
I already stated that in my last post - why did you choose to ignore it?

[Col. Crackpot]

a minor cannot purchase over the counter psudoephedrine cold medicine without an adult... and for good reason. I get the abortion rights argument, but do we really want 14 year olds self medicating without any sort of adult or medical supervision?

By that logic, you shouldn't let 14-year olds buy ANY medication without adult or medical supervision.
No Tylenol for example, because that can easily kill you if you OD.
And no Aspirin either, because that too can have nasty effects.
And a ton of other OTC drugs either, because guess what - practically ALL drugs with medical effects can used wrongly.

Really, i don't see anyone buying Plan B just for fun, or taking it in more than the recommended dose. And FDA and WHO-studies, as well as experience from numerous countries that DO sell it without prescription to minors, tell us that nothing bad will happen if minors can buy it (or even if they get it for free).
I already stated that in my last post - why did you choose to ignore it?

So your argument is because country x does y, so should we? I don't dispute that teens need access to emergency contraception. Just that there needs to be a mature educated and rational adult involved in dispensing it, and providing counciling for potential emotional issues that may arise from the need for emergency contraception. Teens are impulsive and irrational. Remember being one?

[Serafina]

Do you have any argument why you SHOULDN'T use a system that works everywhere else? (at least in the majority of other first-world countries). Or are you just appealing to american exceptionalism here?

Your whole arguments seems to boil down to "teens are going to abuse this. i don't know why or how, but they will because i say so." You are blatantly ignoring evidence that they won't (FDA&WHO-studies as well as practical experience from other countries) without presenting any of your own.

As for counciling for "emotional issues": Yes, IF they are needed such counseling would be good. Why do you have to FORCE it on everyone? Not everyone will need it, and forced counseling is almost useless anyway.

[Col. Crackpot]

Do you have any argument why you SHOULDN'T use a system that works everywhere else? (at least in the majority of other first-world countries). Or are you just appealing to american exceptionalism here?

Your whole arguments seems to boil down to "teens are going to abuse this. i don't know why or how, but they will because i say so." You are blatantly ignoring evidence that they won't (FDA&WHO-studies as well as practical experience from other countries) without presenting any of your own.

As for counciling for "emotional issues": Yes, IF they are needed such counseling would be good. Why do you have to FORCE it on everyone? Not everyone will need it, and forced counseling is almost useless anyway.

That is not my argument. My Argument is that a 14 years old lacks the emotional maturity and education to make medical decisions under emotional duress. How do you handle the "if one pill works, i bet 4 or 5 will work better!" mindset? Serafina I don't get your outrage... What is wrong with having a medical practitioner at a clinic sign off on this if it means a better level of care? I agree with you that in cases like these (possibly religious or irrational) parents often need to be out of the decision making process. But these are children, we don't let them drive or drink or vote for a reason.

[PainRack]

So your argument is because country x does y, so should we? I don't dispute that teens need access to emergency contraception. Just that there needs to be a mature educated and rational adult involved in dispensing it, and providing counciling for potential emotional issues that may arise from the need for emergency contraception. Teens are impulsive and irrational. Remember being one?

So.... what's going to stop them from actually visiting a doctor to get the counselling needed? Apart from America fucked up health system?


Afterall, they do the exact same thing in Mexico and women do go to doctors for family planning sessions still.

[PainRack]

That is not my argument. My Argument is that a 14 years old lacks the emotional maturity and education to make medical decisions under emotional duress. How do you handle the "if one pill works, i bet 4 or 5 will work better!" mindset? Serafina I don't get your outrage... What is wrong with having a medical practitioner at a clinic sign off on this if it means a better level of care? I agree with you that in cases like these (possibly religious or irrational) parents often need to be out of the decision making process. But these are children, we don't let them drive or drink or vote for a reason.

Because as detailed in the 2003 application, introducing a physician/prescription into the picture delays access to emergency contraception, which can cause them to miss the golden window needed for the drug to work.

[Serafina]

[quote="Col. Crackpot]That is not my argument. My Argument is that a 14 years old lacks the emotional maturity and education to make medical decisions under emotional duress. How do you handle the "if one pill works, i bet 4 or 5 will work better!" mindset? Serafina I don't get your outrage... What is wrong with having a medical practitioner at a clinic sign off on this if it means a better level of care? I agree with you that in cases like these (possibly religious or irrational) parents often need to be out of the decision making process. But these are children, we don't let them drive or drink or vote for a reason.[/quote]That is your argument?

Nice, because it has ALREADY been disproved. By evidence you continue to ignore.
Other countries HAVE emergency contraception available without prescription to adolescents. There are no widespread cases of improper application or abuse.
The FDA has done a study that shows that adolescents would understand the proper application of emergency contraception.
The WHO recommends making emergency contraception available to adolescents, based on their own studies.
All this PROVES YOU WRONG.
Unless you want to argue that US-american adolescents are dumber than those in other first-world countries (and that the FDA-study is wrong to boot), you have no argument here.

[Chirios]

It's not really as cut and dry as that, I don't think. The FDA doesn't say "of all ages," it says "of childbearing potential." Leaving it OTC with no requirements at all means an 8 year-old could buy it, and it's certainly going to have some major side effects on a girl who isn't capable of menstruating yet. When girls have their first period varies wildly, some as young as 9 or 10, many as old as 12 or 13.

The 10 to 11 range Obama cited is pretty much the exact range where the most uncertainty lies.

How exactly do you propose the FDA handle this? Present a bloody tampon when buying? Trust a literal child to know the ramifications of taking a megadose of hormones?

I'm sorry but isn't this a bit of an irrelevant question? How many 10-13 year olds are having sex, really? Most people lose their virginities around 14-16.

ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2009) — As a new mother herself, Brenda Lohman admits to being shocked by the results of a new study she co-authored. It found that among nearly 1,000 low-income families in three major cities, one in four children between the ages of 11 and 16 reported having sex, with their first sexual intercourse experience occurring at the average age of 12.77.

"So if 12 years was the average age here, that meant that some kids were starting at 10 or younger," said Lohman, an Iowa State University associate professor of human development and family studies (HDFS). "A handful of kids reported having sex as early as 8 or 9. We know from our follow-up interviews that one boy who reported having sexual intercourse for the first time at age nine had fathered four children by the time he was 18."

"Those people who say that kids don't have sex at that young of age should think again," she said. "Definitely the age is the most shocking thing about this study."

Tina Jordahl, a former Iowa State HDFS and public policy graduate student who is now a market research specialist with Hospice of Central Iowa, collaborated with Lohman on the study. It analyzes data from the "Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study" -- a six-year longitudinal investigation of low-income families living in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. Their paper, titled "A biological analysis of risk and protective factors associated with early sexual intercourse of young adolescents," was posted online in the Children and Youth Services Review and will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal."So if 12 years was the average age here, that meant that some kids were starting at 10 or younger," said Lohman, an Iowa State University associate professor of human development and family studies (HDFS). "A handful of kids reported having sex as early as 8 or 9. We know from our follow-up interviews that one boy who reported having sexual intercourse for the first time at age nine had fathered four children by the time he was 18."

"Those people who say that kids don't have sex at that young of age should think again," she said. "Definitely the age is the most shocking thing about this study."

Tina Jordahl, a former Iowa State HDFS and public policy graduate student who is now a market research specialist with Hospice of Central Iowa, collaborated with Lohman on the study. It analyzes data from the "Welfare, Children and Families: A Three-City Study" -- a six-year longitudinal investigation of low-income families living in Boston, Chicago and San Antonio. Their paper, titled "A biological analysis of risk and protective factors associated with early sexual intercourse of young adolescents," was posted online in the Children and Youth Services Review and will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal.

Interview data for the study was first collected in 1999 on youth between the ages of 10 and 14, and again in 2001. Lohman says she also has data collected in 2006 from the same subjects, who were between 16 and 20 by that time.

Boys having sex earlier, more often than girls

In the study, boys reported their first sexual intercourse at younger ages (averaging 12.48) than girls (13.16). Boys also had nearly 10 percent higher frequency of intercourse than girls and were also more likely to experience sexual debut (20 percent to 14 percent) between the two years when the first two waves of data were collected.

Recent national research has found that 13 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys have had sex by the time they're 16. Lohman says that means the rate of sex among her low-income sample is only slightly higher among the girls, but almost double among the boys.

"The ages [of sexual debut] are a bit younger than the national samples, but not alarmingly so," she said.

African Americans also had 12 percent more early sexual intercourse than whites (29 to 17 percent respectively), although racial differences did not change the age of their first intercourse.
The authors report that periods of instability in family structure and welfare use serve as risk factors for early sexual activity. They found that additional maternal education -- beyond a high school level -- was found to inhibit some of that activity.

"That can be for multiple reasons," Lohman said. "It can be that mothers have better paying jobs and more stable home environment and they're less likely to be in stressful circumstances. It could also be that mothers then have greater cognitive capacities to sort of sit down and discuss the pros and cons of waiting to have sex until you're older."

For that reason, the researchers propose allotting public funding to increase maternal education as a way to reduce early sexual promiscuity among their children.
Juvenile deliquency increases early sexual activity

The study also found the youths' involvement in delinquent acts drastically increases the chances of early sexual activity.

Because of the gender differences in sexual debut, the authors also urge more gender-specific prevention programs that are implemented at earlier ages, especially among high risk populations.
"It may be that boys and girls, starting at younger ages, should have these programs that are designed separately by gender before they're moved back together over time," Lohman said. "And yes, they must start much, much younger than they do now. You have to start before those young kids -- 10 or even younger -- start becoming sexually active."

Lohman is currently working on research to determine the relationship between obesity and teen sexuality. She hopes to publish results from that study within the year.

Interview data for the study was first collected in 1999 on youth between the ages of 10 and 14, and again in 2001. Lohman says she also has data collected in 2006 from the same subjects, who were between 16 and 20 by that time.

Boys having sex earlier, more often than girls

In the study, boys reported their first sexual intercourse at younger ages (averaging 12.48) than girls (13.16). Boys also had nearly 10 percent higher frequency of intercourse than girls and were also more likely to experience sexual debut (20 percent to 14 percent) between the two years when the first two waves of data were collected.

Recent national research has found that 13 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys have had sex by the time they're 16. Lohman says that means the rate of sex among her low-income sample is only slightly higher among the girls, but almost double among the boys

"The ages [of sexual debut] are a bit younger than the national samples, but not alarmingly so," she said.

African Americans also had 12 percent more early sexual intercourse than whites (29 to 17 percent respectively), although racial differences did not change the age of their first intercourse.

The authors report that periods of instability in family structure and welfare use serve as risk factors for early sexual activity. They found that additional maternal education -- beyond a high school level -- was found to inhibit some of that activity.

"That can be for multiple reasons," Lohman said. "It can be that mothers have better paying jobs and more stable home environment and they're less likely to be in stressful circumstances. It could also be that mothers then have greater cognitive capacities to sort of sit down and discuss the pros and cons of waiting to have sex until you're older."

For that reason, the researchers propose allotting public funding to increase maternal education as a way to reduce early sexual promiscuity among their children.

Juvenile deliquency increases early sexual activity

The study also found the youths' involvement in delinquent acts drastically increases the chances of early sexual activity.

Because of the gender differences in sexual debut, the authors also urge more gender-specific prevention programs that are implemented at earlier ages, especially among high risk populations.
"It may be that boys and girls, starting at younger ages, should have these programs that are designed separately by gender before they're moved back together over time," Lohman said. "And yes, they must start much, much younger than they do now. You have to start before those young kids -- 10 or even younger -- start becoming sexually active."

Lohman is currently working on research to determine the relationship between obesity and teen sexuality. She hopes to publish results from that study within the year.

Wow, I didn't know that. Obviously this isn't exactly a large sample size but I mean, I lived in a relatively low income area and I still didn't hear about people losing their virginities until about 13-14, and even then most people lost it around 15-16.