It can make becoming pregnant whenever you want to start a family much more difficult...especially when used more than once. They tell the patient that before they release the pill to them, but I am not to sure that a teenager is capable of grasping exactly what that will mean to them later in life....sad.
I am not saying they aren't a good thing, but a teenager doesn't want to have babies and be a mom....right? But later in life she might want to... That is all I am saying.
A teenager isn't ready to be a mom. They can't take of themselves in most cases.
I doubt a teenager completely comprehends all of the ramifications involved with this pill.
It can make becoming pregnant whenever you want to start a family much more difficult...especially when used more than once. They tell the patient that before they release the pill to them, but I am not to sure that a teenager is capable of grasping exactly what that will mean to them later in life....sad.
This isn't true. I am in the ad industry and earlier this year my agency handled a product that allows women to experience superficial periods four times a year. I was part of the team that conducted due diligence and we had to make some comparisons with other forms of birth control. The morning after pill is essentially standard birth control in a stronger dose. The most serious side effect is nausea.
A teenager isn't ready to be a mom. They can't take of themselves in most cases.
I doubt a teenager completely comprehends all of the ramifications involved with this pill.
What are the long-term side effects?
This isn't true. I am in the ad industry and earlier this year my agency handled a product that allows women to experience superficial periods four times a year. I was part of the team that conducted due diligence and we had to make some comparisons with other forms of birth control. The morning after pill is essentially standard birth control in a stronger dose. The most serious side effect is nausea.
A side effect of standard birth control is having a hard time getting pregnant...
I understand what you're saying and I say it's a GOOD thing
Seems like a great example of natural selection
There are plenty of 13 year olds who can "grasp" the consequences
The less morons breeding the better
No it isn't. There are no long term side effects associated with the pill.
Teenagers making adult decision has nothing to do with natural selection.
Thirteen year olds are not in the position to make adult decisions.
It's an apt metaphor
I would bet that the average 13 year at least understands the basics on human reproduction yet your daughters high school friend has been to PP three times now and still hasn't figured it out?
Can't she slow down on her rutting long enough to buy a pack of condoms?
Maybe she should just stick to blowjobs and perhaps anal for those special occasions - that's what the Christian girls do.
More like a poor analogy.
The average 13-year-old understands the basics of human reproduction and knows how to have sex. That really has nothing to do with whether they are competent to make adult decisions and whether they understand all of the ramifications of a pill that apparently has no long-term studies indicating possible effects of the pill. In fact, a I doubt a 13-year-old can legally provide informed consent without the parents' involvement.
We really have a contradiction in our society, because we have said, in every state, that 13-year-olds cannot consent to sex, but we allow those same 13-year-olds to get abortions and take these kinds of pills without parental involvement.
She is having sex with same guy. In that sense she really isn't much different than the likely millions of women who have used the morning after pill more than once.
More like a poor analogy.
The average 13-year-old understands the basics of human reproduction and knows how to have sex. That really has nothing to do with whether they are competent to make adult decisions and whether they understand all of the ramifications of a pill that apparently has no long-term studies indicating possible effects of the pill. In fact, a I doubt a 13-year-old can legally provide informed consent without the parents' involvement.
We really have a contradiction in our society, because we have said, in every state, that 13-year-olds cannot consent to sex, but we allow those same 13-year-olds to get abortions and take these kinds of pills without parental involvement.
She is having sex with same guy. In that sense she really isn't much different than the likely millions of women who have used the morning after pill more than once.
These girls and boys needs to be taught sex ed. Something to balance out whatever they get from watching TV and reading mags. And I'm not talking porn here. The superficial image of relations as a whole, somewhere, some balancing has to be offered.
I remember my sex education. It didn't made me want to have more sex, it was all about the different STD's that are around, and how dangerous it is to have unprotected sex.
If anything, it seems like it may be too much of a trouble for teenagers to get pills and condoms, and when the sex occurs, they don't have protection, and will foolishly opt for Morning after pill instead.
Which is better than regular birth control, but does nothing to keep STD's at bay.
Some people believe that if you don't talk about sex ed, don't give out condoms, and don't offer abortions, promiscuity among teens will vanish.
That is not my belief.
Isn't that because there have been no studies on the long-term effects of this pill? It hasn't been around that long. Here is an excerpt from a 2003 article (quote from Concerned Women for America):
"Is this safe for women, when in fact there have been no studies done on the long-term effects on women who take the morning-after pill, and there are no studies that have been done on multiple use -- if a woman uses it more than once."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/12/16/morning.after.pill/
Another:
Although no conclusive research has been conducted into the long-term effects of the morning-after pill, Dr Niyada said that some studies showed links between constant high levels of progesterone, due to extended use of the pill, and breast, ovarian and uterine cancer plus ectopic pregnancies.
http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm
I agree with dizzleman on this one.
Both the girl and her boyfriend have been taught sex ed. But sex ed., regardless of the type taught, isn't going to necessarily prevent them having sex. And that isn't really the point of this thread. It's about the appropriateness of Planned Parenthood providing these kinds of services, repeatedly, to a minor without parental involvement.
Both the girl and her boyfriend have been taught sex ed. But sex ed., regardless of the type taught, isn't going to necessarily prevent them having sex.
More like a poor analogy.
The average 13-year-old understands the basics of human reproduction and knows how to have sex. That really has nothing to do with whether they are competent to make adult decisions and whether they understand all of the ramifications of a pill that apparently has no long-term studies indicating possible effects of the pill. In fact, a I doubt a 13-year-old can legally provide informed consent without the parents' involvement.
We really have a contradiction in our society, because we have said, in every state, that 13-year-olds cannot consent to sex, but we allow those same 13-year-olds to get abortions and take these kinds of pills without parental involvement.
She is having sex with same guy. In that sense she really isn't much different than the likely millions of women who have used the morning after pill more than once.
We're talking about your daughters dopey friend who I'm sure is older than 13
From her actions it sounds like she's a box of rocks and her boyfriend doesn't sound any better
What's worse for society - having this girl drop a new cabbage on the planet every 9 months or possibly messing up her baby maker?
Does this girl go to a christian school - perhaps one that teaches abstinence but no actual sex education?
What exactly is her excuse (or her boyfriends) for being so f'ng stupid?
Beach Bum, this post is borderline laughable. To find those selected quotes, you probably had to go through hundreds of quotes that dismissed any long term risks.
The quote on the CNN page is from the spokeswoman of an anti-abortion group and it's wrong. MAP is a stronger dose of a medicine that has been in use for half a century. There is enough real world evidence to come to a conclusion on it's long term side effects. The practice of doubling up on MAP isn't even a recent development. Patients are instructed to do so in the event that they miss a dose.
The second quote is also misleading. To see why just check out the wikipedia page for the pill here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Other_effects.
If you don't feel like reading that, I'll summarize. Basically, any increased risks of the listed diseases is small for a short period of time and negligible in the long term. The page also cites research that indicates carrying a pregnancy to term actually carries more health risks than any form of birth control.
If this girl is repeatedly relying on the morning after pill, then she obviously hasn't been taught sex ed well. The morning after pill is generally regarded as the worst form of birth control. Other than being borderline retarded, there is no reason for her not to be on the pill.
I cannot see how allowing this girl access to birth control is a bad thing. If she has had to resort to the morning after pill so many times while still in high school, she is clearly an irresponsible idiot. Do you really think anything would have turned out better for anyone if she had carried any of her multiple potential pregnancies to term.
Now, I know this may not really be even valid, but if 13 year old girls were getting married and having kids 400 years ago, why are 13 year old girls unable to be adult enough to do it now?
Have we gone backwards?
Isn't this more of a social thing in that we expect people to have sex closer to the age of 18 and therefore don't talk about until further along in their development?
From a "natural" perspective, if the human body is old enough to have children and procreate at 13, then shouldn't 13 year olds be allowed to have sex?
Now, I myself don't want my daughter having sex at 13, but isn't it more because at 13 she still has studies to complete so she can be successful in life? (or what society deems as successful?)
Seems to me that the age thing here is basically going against what nature intends.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here really, but in all reality, is it that they're not old enough, or that we treat them like they're not old enough?
Tu I don't know much about 13-year-olds from 400 years ago, but I do know today's 13-year-olds aren't ready for these kinds of decisions.
But my question is WHY... If they were ready 400 years ago (and history will validate that they were) then why are they not now? What is the difference... It's not their physiology or their intelligence... It's something else... Seems to me like it's society.
Just a thought though.
Your post raises a number of questions. For example, if the morning after pill is just a stronger dose of a drug that has been around for half a century, then why the need for a new FDA approved drug? Why not just prescribe the extra dose of an existing drug?
Also, if this drug was only approved and distributed about three years ago, it is literally impossible to know the effects of multiple uses of this drug on a woman after 10 or 20 years (or more). It hasn't been around long enough.
But my question is WHY... If they were ready 400 years ago (and history will validate that they were) then why are they not now? What is the difference... It's not their physiology or their intelligence... It's something else... Seems to me like it's society.
Just a thought though.
The FDA has to approve any drug that is introduced to the market and advertised with a targeted use. When the patent for Prozac ran out a few years ago, Eli Lily re-introduced the drug as Sarafem, a menstrual relief agent. Even though it was exactly the same drug with a new name, it still needed FDA approval.
Once again, since the medicine has been on the market for nearly half a century, researchers have a plethora of real world stats to judge it's long term effects. It's not a situation like Vioxx, where a new drug may have unforeseen effects down the line. Any long term risks from birth control would have been documented by now. The argument that trials specific to this old drug with a new name don't exist is a red herring in the anti-abortion debate.
History validates that 13-year-olds could make adult decisions 400 years ago? How so?
Society is us. We have decided that little girls cannot consent to sex. We have decided that minors cannot marry, vote, carry weapons, smoke, or consent to medical treatment . . . unless it's an abortion or the morning after pill.
Sure... It's common knowledge that hundreds of years ago that 13 year olds were getting married and having children... These are the adult things this topic speaks on correct? It's about having sex, having kids and the like...
That's my point.
Unless there has been a sea change in the development of 13-year-olds in past 400 years, I don't think they were competent to make those kinds of decisions then and are not competent today. A widespread historical practice isn't necessarily a good practice.
I understand your point. I was (trying) to focus on the appropriateness of a group like Planned Parenthood providing this pill to a minor, on multiple occasions, with no notice to or consent of the parents.
Assuming this is precisely the same drug that has been on the market for nearly half a century, but just a larger dose, where are the studies showing the long-term impact of multiple uses of this larger dose?
i'm going to go drink some mercury now, and perhaps I'll eat some lead . . . i ingest traces of these all the time anyway . . .
hmmm . . . what point were you trying to make again?
your dosages argument is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on getbig, and that's saying something.
and about the lead/mercury thing . . . I wouldn't be so optimistic.
Sorry, dude. That's still a red herring. For what other medication would this standard be applied? "Safe in one dose, safe in another. Limited short term side effects in one dose, the same limited short term side effects in another. No long term side effects in one dose, but we have to conduct twenty years of research to determine if a larger dose -administered infinitely less often, mind you- has any side effects."
None. Doctors constantly alter dosages for patients. Dosages aren't inalterable dogma. A diabetic's doctor will alter his insulin intake repeatedly until the patient's blood sugar level is stabilized.
The only people who have raised the issue of long term studies on MAP are abortion-activists. The position has no merit. It's purely a byproduct of an agenda. Do you really think these people would really object to insulin or tylenol medications delivered in different doses for lack of long term studies?
Unless there has been a sea change in the development of 13-year-olds in past 400 years, I don't think they were competent to make those kinds of decisions then and are not competent today. A widespread historical practice isn't necessarily a good practice.
I understand your point. I was (trying) to focus on the appropriateness of a group like Planned Parenthood providing this pill to a minor, on multiple occasions, with no notice to or consent of the parents.
Oh, and as an added thing... I do think development of 13 year olds has changed... People grow up as early as society requires them to grow up... 14 year olds going to war and things of that nature.
If 13 year old children are taught to be children, stay in school, and not grow up until their 18 or older, then I think that is why 13 year olds 'today' aren't capable of being adults.
It's not that they can not... it's that they aren't 'supposed' to be.
Again, on your stance of parents not being told... I don't agree with that one bit... as my previous posts state.
Bum,
Let's not forget that your point is based on a girl who is older than 13 (what is she 16 or 17) probably old enough to drive and clearly too stupid to understand where babies come from in spite of 3 trips to Planned Parenthood. Again, I'm sure that there are many, many 13 year olds (I chose that age because it's the youngest age of a teenager) who are smart enough to know better.
Does your daughters friend go to a Christian School?
Did she get sex education or just fear mongering/abstinence indoctrination?
As I'm sure you know, abstinence only indoctrination has been an abject failure
Don't blame Planned Parenthood for the actions of this stupid person
Bum,
Let's not forget that your point is based on a girl who is older than 13 (what is she 16 or 17) probably old enough to drive and clearly too stupid to understand where babies come from in spite of 3 trips to Planned Parenthood. Again, I'm sure that there are many, many 13 year olds (I chose that age because it's the youngest age of a teenager) who are smart enough to know better.
Does your daughters friend go to a Christian School?
Did she get sex education or just fear mongering/abstinence indoctrination?
As I'm sure you know, abstinence only indoctrination has been an abject failure
Don't blame Planned Parenthood for the actions of this stupid person
I know a girl who had 2 or 3 abortions... She was definitely over 18 at the time.
It's not age... It's mental maturity (call it brains or intelligence, whatever), and that has NOTHING to do with age.
Yes she goes to a Christian school, which is apropos of nothing.
Yes she got sex education (which I already stated earlier in this thread). Again, apropos of nothing.
The thread has nothing to do with abstinence.
I absolutely blame Planned Parenthood for providing these kinds of services to minors. It's simply not appropriate IMO. It's okay if you disagree.
I figured she went to a Christian School.
Why is it that after "sex education" and 3 trips to Planned Parenthood she's still too stupid to master the complicated mechanics of using a condom?
At least she smart enough to realize that she shouldn't be having any kids
I commend Planned Parenthood for helping this girl.
I suspect there are millions of women over 18 who have had more than 1 abortion.
::)
Right on time - whenever you're incapable of response you pull out the self righteous condescending eye roll
If you're so concerned about your kids stupid friend why don't you do something to help her and go talk to her parents instead of posting on Get Big
The eye roll was for you dumbing down yet another thread Jethro. Ya'll come back now, ya hear?
Oh, and . . . ::)
once again - don't blame me because you're too stupid to understand something
Your kid's friend is a MORON
Stop blaming Planned Parenthood
If your concern for this girl is genuine then stop posting on Get Big and go talk to her parents
" . . . Poor mountainer barely kept his family fed. And then one day he was shootin' at some fooooood. When up through the ground come a bubblin' crude . . . Oil that is . . ."
when you get done singing to yourself maybe you can step away from the computer and actually do something useful and go talk to this girls parents.
That is assuming you actually care about this person and aren't just using her as an example to foment your own prejudice against Planned Parenthood
If not, maybe you can at least show her how to put on a condom
Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.
Well the first thing you know ol Jed's a millionaire,
Kinfolk said "Jed move away from there"
Said "Californy is the place you ought to be"
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.
. . .
Do you really know the words to that song or do you have to look them up?
Is that the kind of stuff you learn in a Christian High School instead of how to wrap your dork.
No Joke - if you really truly cared about this girl you wouldn't post about her on a website and you would go talk to her parents.
Hills, that is. Swimmin pools, movie stars.
Well now its time to say good by to Jed and all his kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
You're all invited back a gain to this locality
To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality
Hillybilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.
Bum - did it ever occur to you that while you're sitting home singing songs this poor stupid girl could be at Planned Parenthood right now?
...or worse, ...influencing his daughter. He's all riled up about his daughter's friend getting assistance from planned Parenthood, ...but isn't seeing the bigger issue here... his daughter's friend is sexually active, and not using birthcontrol or practicing safe sex. They say you will know someone by who their xlosest friends are. His daughter could be a hair's breadth away from unsafe unprotected sex herself.
If he talks to the girls parents, it's gonna have ramifications on the friendship between that girl and his daughter (which could be what he wants), ...but at the same time, it's definitely gonna have an effect on how much he daughter trusts him again in the future.
Beach, you need to stop focussing on this girl, ...and focus on your daughter.
...or worse, ...influencing his daughter. He's all riled up about his daughter's friend getting assistance from planned Parenthood, ...but isn't seeing the bigger issue here... his daughter's friend is sexually active, and not using birthcontrol or practicing safe sex. They say you will know someone by who their xlosest friends are. His daughter could be a hair's breadth away from unsafe unprotected sex herself.
If he talks to the girls parents, it's gonna have ramifications on the friendship between that girl and his daughter (which could be what he wants), ...but at the same time, it's definitely gonna have an effect on how much he daughter trusts him again in the future.
Beach, you need to stop focussing on this girl, ...and focus on your daughter.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm actually very comfortable with the level communication I have with my daughter. She is very bright, level headed, and makes good decisions. The fact we openly talk about sex and she talks to me openly about which ones of her friends are sexually active speaks volumes. People who actually raise kids would understand this.
What do your teenaged daughters think about this?
Jag,
all good points. From Bum's first post it seems as though his daughter broached the subject and perhaps is worried about her friend. I'm assuming of course that he's truly concerned about this girl and not just using her as an example for his well known issue with female reproductive rights. No doubt, talking with this girls parents could be touchy and unless I knew them personally I would most likely not want to butt in either. Then again, Bum does seem to be a busy body/mother hen type who loves to instruct people on the proper way to conduct their lives. Whatever path is taken, it just seems that posting about her on Get Big is the least useful thing to do.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm actually very comfortable with the level communication I have with my daughter. She is very bright, level headed, and makes good decisions. The fact we openly talk about sex and she talks to me openly about which ones of her friends are sexually active speaks volumes. People who actually raise kids would understand this.
What do your teenaged daughters think about this?
In other words, there are no studies. What you're saying doesn't make sense Al. If it's just a matter of increasing the dose of a pill, there would be no need for an entirely new drug. I haven't researched this pill at all, but I question whether it is the simply a stronger dose of a drug that has been on the market for 50 years. (And I don't feel like looking it up. :))
Although no conclusive research has been conducted into the long-term effects of the morning-after pill, Dr Niyada said that some studies showed links between constant high levels of progesterone, due to extended use of the pill, and breast, ovarian and uterine cancer plus ectopic pregnancies.
http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm
Only "anti-abortion activists" have raised questions? Even if that's true, which I doubt, so what. Are you saying people who oppose abortion lack credibility?
Thanks for the advice, but I'm actually very comfortable with the level communication I have with my daughter. She is very bright, level headed, and makes good decisions. The fact we openly talk about sex and she talks to me openly about which ones of her friends are sexually active speaks volumes. People who actually raise kids would understand this.
What do your teenaged daughters think about this?
yep :)
I have a 19 year daughter. I agree.
Can't argue with that, ...but at the same time, how you handle such knowledge is going to have an effect on how she trusts you with such knowledge again in the future. You may be a parent, ...but I have been a teenage girl, ...and have been witness to more teenage girl folly than you ever have, ...and have been counsel for more teenage girls than you will ever be. All I can tell you is you need to TRUST ME on this one. You may think your daughter has a level head on her shoulders and makes good decisions, (and as a parent, ...you do get to be biased where your own kids are concerned ;)) ...but clearly she doesn't make good decisions when it comes to the company she chooses to keep. Why does a smart, intelligent, level-headed girl, choose friends who make such bad decisions? hmmm
In this area, yes. You are a perfect illustration of why that is.
I've posted multiple links and examples to explain most of the questions you've raised about birth control, but you've ignored all of them and just keep repeating the points I've already addressed.
You can't really be trusted to make an objective, accurate assessment about this issue because you're afraid to consider any information that might alter your position.
People like who? The people who are raising your daughter's friend?
You seem to be implying that because you've managed to raise a daughter who's, thusfar, avoided getting pregnant that it makes you an expert on teenage sexuality. Mind you, the young lady who's running to PP every week without her parent's knowledge has managed to avoid pregnancy, as well.
I spent another few minutes and came up with others (undoubtedly anti-abortion activists) who have questions:
http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/map
And there is this quote from earlier in the thread:
Although no conclusive research has been conducted into the long-term effects of the morning-after pill, Dr Niyada said that some studies showed links between constant high levels of progesterone, due to extended use of the pill, and breast, ovarian and uterine cancer plus ectopic pregnancies.
http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm
If some studies show links between constant high levels of progesterone and health problems, I wonder what the studies will show on doses 50 times higher than normal?
My daughter's friend has a mother who got pregnant at an early age and is now divorced. The girl lives with her father and one of his girlfriends. Not surprised at all that her dysfunctional environment has led to poor decision making.
Go get yourself a husband and make a baby or two and you may have a different outlook on child-rearing.
From the mission statement on that site:
"To affirm, defend and promote the existence and value of human life from the moment of conception, and to defend and protect human life generally."
""To examine existing or proposed laws, legislation or regulations relating to abortion and to support or oppose such as appropriate."
Yep. Just an anti-choice talking point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Other_effects
"Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory......
This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening"
Feel free to refer to my previous posts to answer your next post in this thread. ;)
When I have time I'm going to do some research on this. (Might take a while.)
I'll say. Cathy and the gals over at Conservative Chicks who Care about Christ and Conception probably won't be done with their research until sometime next year.
Now I understand why doctors couldn't just prescribe an extra dose. It wasn't just an extra dose. It was a massive extra dose. No doctor can ethically prescribe an approved drug at 50 times its recommended dose.
It's sort of like saying steroids are safe because we prescribe them to asthmatics, while guys are using them at 100 times the recommended dose. It sounds like women (and girls) are walking experiments, just like guys on the sauce.
Since you believe "anti-abortion activists" aren't credible, then I guess the statement from the link I posted is false?
-----------------------------------
And for the record, I don't have an opinion on whether multiple uses of this pill has no long-term effects on teenaged girls. I don't have enough information.
I agree with dizzleman on this one.
Except for the fact that doctors HAD been prescribing the extra doses for decades prior to the Over the counter release of Plan B.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EEDD103FF931A3575BC0A9609C8B63
"Doctors have advised women for decades to take several birth control pills within 72 hours of sex to prevent conception, and Plan B, approved as a prescription in 1999, marketed that treatment as a two-pill pack."
Except for the fact that that's a poor analogy on two fronts. Asthmatics don't use anabolic steroids. They use corticosteroids. Patients using corticosteroids can experience extreme side effects, even on small doses... once again supporting my claim that this whole "long term side effect" thing is hogwash. The entirety of a drug's side effects just aren't going to remain dormant for decades on end.
This is why I say that abortion opponents have little credibility on issues like this.
On the first page of this thread you say this:
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Dizzleman was making the claim that birth control made future conception more difficult. You posted quotes from two articles that didn't even address that subject, yet you still concluded that he was right. It's pretty clear based on what you have written that you HAVE already made up your mind, but you think feigning objectivity gives your protests more credibility.
(FYI- it doesn't. ;D )
I'm not going to debate whether you have counseled more teenaged girls than me. I have no way of knowing that, and neither do you. I will say that when you actually raise children it gives you a different perspective. In a sense you're like the person giving driving tips despite never having a license and never having driven a car. Sure you can play video games and watch TV, but you need to actually take the test and drive to give sound advice.
Go get yourself a husband and make a baby or two and you may have a different outlook on child-rearing.(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/laughing_at_u.gif)
My daughter is just like her father:
she is friendly with everyone she meets, warts and all. It's a good trait and broadens your horizens. She also trys to have a positive impact on others who might be struggling with certain issues.
Oh please. To the extent dizzleman believes there are risks or questions about risks, and that minors aren't capable of appreciating these risks, I agree with him.
And dude I could care less if you think I'm trying to appear not to have made up my mind. I say what I think. If I have an opinion, I state it. If I have questions, I ask them. Rest assured I won't be losing any sleep over whether you or anyone believes what I say is "credible." :)
Also, you didn't address this quote from the website that you believe has no credibility:
"There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."
Is this a false statement? Where are the trials, published or otherwise, showing the long-term effects of prescribing a drug at 50 times its normal dose?
Except I read the link you provided and it doesn't say doctors advised women to take 50 times the recommended dose of a birth control pill. Would be like the whole pack?
O.K. Asthmatics was a poor analogy. Try growth hormone. It's prescribed by doctors, but not at the amounts used by people who abuse the drug.
Oh please. To the extent dizzleman believes there are risks or questions about risks, and that minors aren't capable of appreciating these risks, I agree with him.
Also, you didn't address this quote from the website that you believe has no credibility:
"There have been no trials on the long-term effects of the morning-after pill and no published trials on its effects on the fertility and health of teenage girls."
Is this a false statement? Where are the trials, published or otherwise, showing the long-term effects of prescribing a drug at 50 times its normal dose?
PRECISELY MY POINT BUM! I have actually been a teenaged girl... have you?
I know how they think, ...and I know what influences them, ...and if you for a minute think she tells you EVERYTHING ...then in a few years you just might be on here flipping mad because PP assisted YOUR daughter without your knowledge.
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/laughing_at_u.gif)
Too bad you'll never have a womb or have the ability to give birth. :'(
Perhaps if you did, ...you'd lose this compulsive obsession of yours to control the wombs of the world's women.
Ya know she'd die of embarrassment if that got out there don'tcha? :-[ :-X
All the more reason why you need to focus your attention on your daughter, ...and quit worrying about the fact that PP is assisting teenaged girls too irresponsible to use birth control, or practice safe sex.
If that's your big beef, then I suggest you take the battle up with the feds and the pharmaceutical companies who approved it, ...not PP. But I sense your real beef is not with the drug's safety record, ...but with the drug itself.
In any event, my original advice still stands... focus on your daughter.
Plan B is not 50 pills worth of birth control. Did you get that from the
"700 Club" website?
This is the link to the FDA carton text for MAP:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:skFvueF7rMMJ:www.fda.gov/Cder/foi/label/1999/21045lbl.pdf+%22plan+b%22+progestin+mg&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
"Each Plan B tablet contains 0.75 mg of the active ingredient, levonorgestrel"
I don't know what you think you're clearing up here. You believe there are risks despite having no evidence. That does not equal not having made up your mind. How is this contrary to what I said?
I've addressed this ridiculousness in several posts.
Please name any medication that has hit the market in the last 15 years that has any long term studies attached to it.
Please name any medication that has no short term side effects, yet has long term side effects that can remain dormant and without any symptoms for decades.
O.K. This horse is about dead, but you didn't address squat. Your argument is really illogical Al. Sorry.
You didn't disprove this statement, which should be pretty simple if there are in fact "published trials."
2. This particular medication has apparently not been studied under doses "50 times more than ordinary contraceptive . . . ." On the other hand, the preceding statement must be false, because Dr Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee must be a "pro life activist." (I have no idea who he or she is.)
And women who take the morning-after pill unaware that they are already pregnant risk causing deformities in their babies, particularly to the reproductive organs.
I guess you're done with this topic, BB, but I just wanted to let you know that there actually HAVE been long term studies performed on prolonged high dose usage of birth control hormones.
I posted earlier about the research I had to do on birth control options for an account I was working on last year. When we were discussing the hormone dosages in regular birth control versus MAP, it reminded me that birth control used to contain a lot more progestin.
I was going to look up some stuff in medical journals, but when I worked on that account I was with a different agency and we don't have access to certain medical journals with our LexisNexis subscription at my current place of employment.
But I found a webpage that gives some suitable info. This is from the FDA's official website:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html
"The first oral contraceptives contained 100 micrograms (mcg) to 175 mcg of
estrogen and as much as 10 milligrams (mg) of progestin--significantly higher levels of both hormones than in today's pill."
That's actually more than the .75 mg of progestin in the morning after pill.
A few interesting quotes:
"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."
"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."
"One of the major problems of the studies to date, says Corfman, is that all
the data reflect the effects of the higher-dose pills"
"In addition to its contraceptive effectiveness, the pill has proven to have
significant health benefits. Studies show that the incidence of ovarian and
endometrial cancers, benign cysts of the ovaries and breasts, and pelvic
inflammatory disease decreases with pill use."
Thanks Al. I read the information and the links. Assuming the earlier information I read is accurate (50 times normal dose), this appears to fall short of a study showing the long-term effects of the pills currently on the market. I do agree that studies on prolonged high doses is helpful, but I don't think they're conclusive given the apparent massively larger dose contained in the morning after pill.
According to Dr Niyada Kiatying-Angsulee from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Chulalongkorn University, the ``emergency pill'' available locally contains 0.75 microgrammes of the hormone, 50 times more than the ordinary oral contraceptive taken in 21-, 28- or 35-day courses.
http://www.morningafterpill.org/bangkok.htm
No problem. You've actually posted the information you're basing this on here before. You reposted it right on this page and Dr. Kiatying-Angsulee gives the precise amount of hormones found in the emergency pill :
The link in my previous post clearly stated that old birth control contained 10 milligrams of hormones.
I'm sure I don't have to illustrate simple arithmetic for you, but 10 milligrams> 0.75 micrograms.
(Full disclosure: that is actually a typo from that article. MAP contains .75 mgs or progestin, not mcgs. Still, that's only a fraction of the amount of progestin birth control pills originally contained.)
I tried to highlight all of the important developments in the pill in that earlier post. I know it was a bit lengthy, so this was probably easy to miss:
"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."
This is also from that article:
"Most pills prescribed today contain 30
to 35 mcg of estrogen "
And this is from the Plan B website:
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/WhatisPlanB.aspx
"And, unlike many birth control pills, Plan B® does not contain any estrogen."
Plan B is the only emergency birth control pill available in America.
If Plan B contains no estrogen and the earlier studies involved elevated levels of estrogen, then the studies have no relevance to the safety of Plan B, right?
That's really grasping at straws.
I'm not grasping at anything. Just asking a question. Why cite a study involving a different hormone/drug?
Also, even if you conclude estrogen and the active ingredient in Plan B are the same (I have no idea), the 1969 research showed a link between elevated estrogen and a number of health problems:
"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."
I'm not grasping at anything. Just asking a question. Why cite a study involving a different hormone/drug?
Also, even if you conclude estrogen and the active ingredient in Plan B are the same (I have no idea), the 1969 research showed a link between elevated estrogen and a number of health problems:
"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."
Beach, to get a better understanding of this, you need to know how female oral contraceptives work.
1st. The estrogen in the birth control pill fools the body into believing the woman is pregnant. This way, an egg does not grow to maturity and get released from the ovaries from month to month. It also makes a woman's hair grow thicker and makes the boobies bigger.
2nd. The progestin, or other active ingredients thicken the protective cervical plug, so that in the event that an egg does get realeased, any swimmers trying to get up there to fertilize it, has a really hard time getting through.
3rd, They cause the endometrial lining to become an unreceptive host.
What the morning after pill does is a turbo charged version of #3. It cause the endometrial lining to become a bad host, so a fertilized egg will not implant itself to the womb.
So it is possible to have an effective morning after pill that doesn't contain estrogen.
Thanks for the explanation. So like I said earlier, studies using elevated levels of estrogen aren't relevant to the morning after pill if the morning after pill contains no estrogen.
Estrogen and Progestin are two different hormones that are BOTH used in birth control. According to the FDA, the estrogen was the cause of limited health concerns and the levels of estrogen have been steadily decreased since the pill's inception. Estrogen is not in plan B.
No. For some reason, you keep ignoring the fact that the original pills also contained high levels of progestin. I'm sure it's not intentional, so I'll explain it again.
Old birth control contained estrogen and progestin.
High levels of estrogen was found to cause occasional side effects. Progestin was deemed safe.
Plan B contains progestin- lower levels than birth control contained for 20 years.
Plan B doesn't contain the hormone that is considered potentially harmful.
If you find something else to misunderstand, just post it. I'll try to clear it up for you.
I guess you're done with this topic, BB, but I just wanted to let you know that there actually HAVE been long term studies performed on prolonged high dose usage of birth control hormones.
I posted earlier about the research I had to do on birth control options for an account I was working on last year. When we were discussing the hormone dosages in regular birth control versus MAP, it reminded me that birth control used to contain a lot more progestin.
I was going to look up some stuff in medical journals, but when I worked on that account I was with a different agency and we don't have access to certain medical journals with our LexisNexis subscription at my current place of employment.
But I found a webpage that gives some suitable info. This is from the FDA's official website:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html
"The first oral contraceptives contained 100 micrograms (mcg) to 175 mcg of
estrogen and as much as 10 milligrams (mg) of progestin--significantly higher levels of both hormones than in today's pill."
That's actually more than the .75 mg of progestin in the morning after pill.
A few interesting quotes:
"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."
"By the mid '70s, most women who used oral contraceptives were taking pills
that contained 50 mcg or less of estrogen--a considerable decrease over the
100 to 150 mcg of the '60s."
"One of the major problems of the studies to date, says Corfman, is that all
the data reflect the effects of the higher-dose pills"
"In addition to its contraceptive effectiveness, the pill has proven to have
significant health benefits. Studies show that the incidence of ovarian and
endometrial cancers, benign cysts of the ovaries and breasts, and pelvic
inflammatory disease decreases with pill use."
O.K. Here is your post that started this exchange. Where exactly does it say elevated levels of progestin was deemed safe?
"By 1969, ongoing research had revealed that the risks of blood clots, heart
attack, and stroke were directly related to the amount of estrogen in the
various versions of the pill."
C'mon Al. Aren't you taking liberty with that quote? It doesn't say all of the "various versions of the pill" contained both estrogen and progestinYes, it does. Read the article.
and it doesn't say there were no risks associated with elevated levels of progestin.
In any event, if the comments I just posted from the FDA chief are accurate, the morning after pill contains multiple ingredients...
As I suspected, the morning after pill does not have the identical ingredients of pills that have been on the market for 50 years. Here is an 05 statement from the FDA chief:
"Plan B has been referred to as emergency contraception. It contains one of the same active ingredients used in ordinary prescription birth control pills -- only in the case of Plan B – each pill contains a much higher dose and is taken in a different way."
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2005/NEW01223.html
Lester M. Crawford is a "pro life activist." :D
It says "one of" because there are TWO ingredients in birth control. ::) Estrogen and Progestin... the two ingredients we've been talking about for like 10 posts now.
Plan B contains ONE ingedient. Progestin...which is also "one of the ingredients used in ordinary prescription birth control pills."
Based on what I've read about this pill so far, there have been no studies on the long-term effects
You cite a 1969 study that shows harmful effects of elevated levels of estrogen and claim that because they don't mention progestin
It sounds like you've reach a conclusion and are trying to find whatever information you can to support that conclusion.
I tell you what, I still plan to spend some time looking into this, but if you provide me with a link that shows studies of the possible health implications of repeated use of the morning after pill (the one that hit the market a few years ago) and the results of those studies, I'll read it.
Beach, let's break this down even further.
Scenario:
Eating 2 diced tomatoes sprinkled liberally with 4 cups of salt everyday will cause you to have hpertension.
It has been established that it is NOT the tomatoes, but the excessive salt that you're putting on the tomatoes that will give you the high blood pressure.
Going from 2 diced tomatoes a day to eating 12 diced tomatoes at one meal, isn't going to cause you to have high blood pressure, because those 12 diced tomatoes are not sprinkled with any salt.
the tomatoes = progestin
the salt = estrogen
"Fears about blood clots, heart attack, and stroke, which spurred exhaustive
research on oral contraceptives in the '60s and '70s, have largely been laid
to rest by the safer, low-dose birth control pills on the market today."
Uncertainties remain about whether the pill causes breast or cervical cancer
in some groups of women. Despite many studies over the years, there is still
insufficient evidence to definitely rule out these possibilities.
In other words, there are unanswered questions about normal doses of estrogen and progestin, which means there are certainly unanswered questions about repeated uses of massive doses of these hormones.
I also just read a link that indicates some morning after pills contain both hormoneshttp://ec.princeton.edu/questions/brands-USA.html
We're talking about your daughters dopey friend who I'm sure is older than 13
From her actions it sounds like she's a box of rocks and her boyfriend doesn't sound any better
What's worse for society - having this girl drop a new cabbage on the planet every 9 months or possibly messing up her baby maker?
Does this girl go to a christian school - perhaps one that teaches abstinence but no actual sex education?
What exactly is her excuse (or her boyfriends) for being so f'ng stupid?
Seriously, what is your problem with Christians?
Did a catholic priest fuck you in the ass and not return your phone calls?
[chuckle] :) You lost me in the first sentence.
1. No one can eat 4 cups of salt a day and live.
2. Salt does not cause high blood pressure.
Bad analogy.
Seriously, what is your problem with Christians?
Did a catholic priest fuck you in the ass and not return your phone calls?
Big surprise there... NOT :-\
You've never tasted my cooking. :D
Maybe not, ...but watching your obtuseness in action does! :-*
Seriously, what is your problem with Christians?
Did a catholic priest fuck you in the ass and not return your phone calls?
Obtuse?? lol! You just used a hypothetical that involved four cups of salt daily, which would kill you, said salt causes high blood pressure, and compared a drug to a vegetable. lol! Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the topic. Again.
Well . . . I take that back. You did make me laugh. :)
Should we really dedicate six pages to the "Planned Parenthood - Morning After Pill" thread? It doesn't make sense to me considering the countless major issues and problems facing our Country today.
I know you don't expect me to read all that. If it contains something noteworthy, you should have highlighted it.
I did skim it and noticed none of the Concered Women's objections were based on scientifically-backed health concerns. Most of the objections actually weren't based on imaginary health concerns, either. They seemed to be more concerned about the provocative ad campaign and debating whether or not life begins at fertilization.
I also noticed that the article contained some misleading info. For instance, they use the high rate of latent diabetes among women as a reason to keep Plan B a prescription drug. However, this site verifies my suspicions. Estrogen, not progestin, is linked to any health risks a diabetic may experience.
http://www.drugstore.com/qxa1377_333181_sespider-i_have_diabetes__can_i_take_birth_control_pills_or_will_it_make_my_diabetes_worse.htm
I also noticed that all three articles were from anti-abortion websites.
Despite their length, those articles didn't seem to contain anything of note.
Found these "talking points" from the Concerned Women for America website. I read a number of categorical statements from doctors, etc. saying Plan B is "safe" and has absolutely no adverse long-term effects. Then I read the following and it raises a number of legitimate questions, including the question I've raised in this thread.
Talking Points on the Morning-After Pill (MAP) 8/25/2006
By Wendy Wright
Why the Morning-After Pill should not be available without a prescription.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5621/CWA/life/index.htm
Bum,
Your source is the Concerned Women of America which is one the most radical and most ill-informed of all the right wing hate groups (do some research and see what the think of Dick Cheney for supporting his gay daughter)
Bottom Line
preventing unwanted pregnancy > perceived "problems" with morning after pill
Also, morning after pill is NOT RU486
In one example, Gary Bourgeois’ girlfriend refused to have an abortion. During sexual relations, he inserted misoprostol, used in the RU-486 abortion regimen. Later she experienced violent cramps then felt a partly dissolved pill drop from her vagina. Her baby died. He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and administering a noxious substance in Canada in September, 2003.
In another incident, Dr. Stephen Pack pleaded guilty to injecting Joy Schepis with an abortion-inducing drug in April 2000. The Bronx, New York, doctor jabbed his former lover with a syringe filled with methotrexate, which causes abortions, because she refused to have one.
1. Not it isn't. But even it was, so what.
2. Bottom line: there are unanswered questions about the long-term health implications of repeated use of this pill by teenagers.
3. ??? Who said the morning after pill was RU486?
Why do you post stuff about abortion drugs when it's not relevent to the conversation
You do read the stuff you that you cut and paste right?
Does this example have anything to do with the MAP?
is #1 in regards to the Concerned Woman for America?
Are you saying "so what" even if/though they are an ill-informed hate group??
::) You high again? I cut and pasted the relevant excerpt: "Lack of scientific studies examining risks. There is a clear lack of scientific studies on the long-term-effects of Plan B with respect to high dosage and repeated use in both women and adolescents."
I even put it in bold. Put the bong down and try and focus.
you always resort "pot" reference whenever you're stumped.
FACT - you posted crap about abortion pills in a discussion about morning after contraception
FACT - Concerned Women for America (I assume you are a card carrying member) is a right wing hate group ....I mean Christian Pro-Ignorancy Group founed by the wife of the moron who wrote the Left Behind books.
FACT - You smoke marijuana.
FACT - You have trouble following a discussion.
FACT - You are a liar.
FACT - "Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent." http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=160887.0
I'm starting to see a pattern here. :-\ Can I make a suggestion? http://www.na.org/
I didn't expect you to read it, although it's about the same length as the article you posted by Sharon Snider.
It really doesn't matter to me whether those who have questions are pro life.
Based on what I've read, this issue is highly politicized.
You've admitted you reached a conclusion and are looking for facts to support your conclusion. My approach is a little different: get the facts, then reach a conclusion.
FACT - You smoke marijuana.
FACT - You have trouble following a discussion.
FACT - You are a liar.
FACT - "Even Infrequent Use of Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis by 40 Percent." http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=160887.0
I'm starting to see a pattern here. :-\ Can I make a suggestion? http://www.na.org/
When I link to an article, I ALWAYS extract any information relevant to my point and explain how it's relevant to my point. You just posted a 10,000 word article and expected something to stick.
Followed immediately by this:
So assuming you understand the meaning of the words you typed in that second quote, it should be glaringly, painfully obvious why an anti-abortion would lack credibility when they are the only ones questioning the safety of a pill with literally decades of research backing up its safety.
You're taking this way out of context. As I've already stated, I had already familiarized myself with many of these issues in a professional capacity. I have not been looking for facts to support an uninformed conclusion, I have been looking for documentation that supports conclusions that are scientifically sound and have been verified.
You have been actively avoiding facts. That FDA report on birth control is pretty conclusive proof that there aren't any serious long term side effects from progestin, yet you've been conjuring up increasingly trivial reasons to discount it.
I find it interesting that 40 years of birth control data is not enough to convince you of progestin's safety, but you put a lot of stock in one study that shows pot use may increase the possibility of schizophrenia by .4%. I guess you only like science when it's convenient.
I didn't really post the "talking points" for you specifically. It was an fyi for anyone who might be interested. I don't know how many words are contained in the Sharon Snider article, but upon further review it might be longer than what I posted.Quote
And once again, I didn't just post the article verbatim. I posted the relevant points of the article.QuoteThere is no research addressing the concerns raised by a number of people. I don't view Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, or any of the doctors who expressed concerns as any less credible than a group like Planned Parenthood that appears to be nothing more than an abortion mill. You cannot reasonably contend Planned Parenthood doesn't have an agenda. I consider the source too, but even biased sources can raise legitimate questions and make legitimate points.
When have I used any info from Planned Parenthood?
I can and do contend that the FDA and virtually the entire medical industry don't have an agenda.QuoteI'm not conjuring up anything. I've been looking for a study on a specific issue. That study doesn't exist.
The research is conclusive and thorough. You've chosen to ignore it for reasons that range from inaccurate to illogical. The simple fact of the matter is that progestin does not have any long term side effects and there is decades of research that backs that up.
When have I used any info from Planned Parenthood?
I can and do contend that the FDA and virtually the entire medical industry don't have an agenda.
The research is conclusive and thorough. You've chosen to ignore it for reasons that range from inaccurate to illogical. The simple fact of the matter is that progestin does not have any long term side effects and there is decades of research that backs that up.
It's "conclusive and thorough," yet you cannot provide a link to a single study on the long-term effects of repeated use of this particular pill by teenagers. When I asked for a link you provided this: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00027.html - an article by FDA staff writer Sharon Snider.
I read the entire article. It does not provide conclusive evidence of the safety of repeated use of this pill by teenagers, and in fact raises numerous safety issues (as I pointed out earlier). Simply saying this pill is safe--in the context in which I have raised questions--doesn't make it so.
I get the feeling we will not agree on this. :)
I read the entire article. It does not provide conclusive evidence of the safety of repeated use of this pill by teenagers, and in fact raises numerous safety issues (as I pointed out earlier).
Great stuff. Hard to deny the abortion issue after reading the photographer's story.
http://michaelclancy.com/story.html (http://michaelclancy.com/story.html)
Your pre-occupation with anal sexscaresexcites me. :)
Nothing so dramatic - just grew up observing that fundamentalist Christians were, as a group, some of the least intelligent, most hypocritical people I had ever seen. Then, of course, I observed them infect the political system in this country to the detriment of us all.
Planned Parenthood has done a great service by helping this, poor, stupid, er... I mean Christian "educated" girl from fucking up her life. I'd rather her go there 1000 more times than drop another unwanted baby on the planet.
I fixed it for you. 8)
What do you want on your pizza?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=481313&in_page_id=1879 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=481313&in_page_id=1879)
Sad. I wonder how many women get abortions to preserve a certain lifestyle, like this woman:
She's an adult and is not breaking any laws
What business do you have passing judgement on her?
Now, ask me if I give a rat's behind whether or not you have a problem with my opinion.LOL!!!!!
::) I didn't pass judgment on her. I have an opinion.
In my opinion, it's a shame that some women choose to kill their baby because they are more concerned about their career:
"I fell pregnant at the worst possible time. Having worked for years to establish my career, the last thing I wanted was a child. All through my 20s I'd saved up to buy my flat, and for the first time in years I was able to go out and buy little luxuries."
Now, ask me if I give a rat's behind whether or not you have a problem with my opinion.
This case is on it's way to the Supreme Court....guaranteed! All the more reason why this next presidential election is so pivotal.
Top N.J. Court Reverses Abortion Ruling
By JEFFREY GOLD – 1 day ago
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an "existing human being," a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, averting a trial over when human life begins.
The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins.
The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel and dismissed the lawsuit of a woman who had an abortion. Abortion cases pending in Illinois and South Dakota have raised the same issue.
"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," New Jersey Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a woman who accused a doctor of failing to give her enough information before she signed a consent form for him to perform an abortion.
Rose Acuna questioned whether Dr. Sheldon C. Turkish misled her in 1996 about the development of the pregnancy, then in the sixth or seventh week. She was 29 at the time and had two daughters following a miscarriage when she consulted Turkish, who had delivered her second child.
"According to Acuna, Turkish told her that she 'needed an abortion because (y)our kidneys are messing you up,'" court papers said. "Acuna asked Turkish whether 'the baby was already there.' According to Acuna, Turkish replied, 'Don't be stupid, it's only blood.'"
Acuna signed a consent form, and Turkish did the abortion. Bleeding continued, however, and seven weeks later Acuna went to a hospital. She was diagnosed with an incomplete abortion and had another procedure.
"According to her, one of the nurses caring for her explained that the procedure was necessary because Turkish 'had left parts of the baby inside of (her).' Thus, Acuna concluded based on the reference to 'the baby' that she had given consent to an abortion based on erroneous information," the appellate panel wrote last year.
Acuna, now 40, says she suffered emotional distress for the death of an unborn child.
Acuna's lawyer, Harold J. Cassidy, said he was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Millions of women across the nation have made the same complaint as Mrs. Acuna," said Cassidy, an anti-abortion lawyer based in Monmouth County who is also involved in the South Dakota case.
"They have lost something of great value, which is dismissed as mere tissue," added Cassidy, who is also known for successfully arguing against surrogate parenting contracts in the 1987 "Baby M" case.
The doctor's lawyer, John Zen Jackson, said "the court properly recognized there are limits to a physician's duty in obtaining a patient's consent."
In South Dakota, Planned Parenthood is challenging a 2005 law that requires abortion doctors to tell women several things, including that an abortion ends human life. It has never been enforced, however, having been put on hold by a federal judge. The lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is pending.
The American Civil Liberties Union said a class-action medical malpractice lawsuit with similar claims as those raised by Acuna was recently brought in Illinois.
Marie Tasy, executive director of the anti-abortion group New Jersey Right to Life, decried the ruling. "My reaction is that once again the court relies on an outdated schizophrenic mentality to the detriment of women and indulges in semantic gymnastics to avoid the indisputable fact that a child in the womb is a human being," she said.
The ACLU praised the decision, saying it "sends a message that New Jersey will not tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech," said Ed Barocas, legal director of the state's ACLU chapter.
Wow. Can't believe her doctor said "Don't be stupid, it's only blood." Not surprised to see Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on the other side of this one. I wonder how telling a woman her baby is actually a baby curtails "reproductive rights"? ::)
maybe the reason you can't believe it is because it's not a quote from the doctor
What you're reading is a quote from the woman about what she claims the doctor said to her.
"According to Acuna, Turkish told her that she 'needed an abortion because (y)our kidneys are messing you up,'"
Does that sound something a doctor would say?
Did you notice this part in the article:
The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins.
"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," New Jersey Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court.
Simple solution - if you're against abortion then don't get one - problem solved
Well Gooolly Sarge. Thanks for clearing that up. ::)
no problem - I know reading comprehension is not one of your strengths.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057752/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057752/
Wow. Can't believe her doctor said "Don't be stupid, it's only blood." Not surprised to see Planned Parenthood and the ACLU on the other side of this one. I wonder how telling a woman her baby is actually a baby curtails "reproductive rights"? ::)Would you believe Planned Parenthood had the audacity to place an office right next to a Toys'R'Us in my town? >:( >:( >:(
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Would you believe Planned Parenthood had the audacity to place an office right next to a Toys'R'Us in my town? >:( >:( >:(
lol. Three wrong assumptions in this thread Al. No I'm not necessarily an expert on teenage sexuality. I am an expert on raising my own kids. I also know that people who actually raise kids often have a different perspective than people who don't. Try having a discussion with someone who has never worked in advertising and have them tell you how to do your job. Don't you think you have a different outlook after having worked on the inside?
And some parents don't do so hot with child rearing. My daughter's friend has a mother who got pregnant at an early age and is now divorced. The girl lives with her father and one of his girlfriends. Not surprised at all that her dysfunctional environment has led to poor decision making.