Fluke’s Dream: The Pill OTC and the “Morning After Pill” for Children. (Open Thread)

© Miri WTPOTUS November 26, 2012

Recently, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued an opinion about access to birth control pills in the USA.

[Emphasis added to all quotes.]

No prescription or doctor’s exam needed: The nation’s largest group of obstetricians and gynecologists says birth control pills should be sold over the counter, like condoms.

The surprise opinion this week from these gatekeepers of contraception could boost longtime efforts by women’s advocates to make the pill more accessible. …

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration held a meeting to gather ideas about how to sell regular oral contraceptives without a prescription, too. …

Half of the nation’s pregnancies every year are unintended, a rate that hasn’t changed in 20 years — and easier access to birth control pills could help, said Dr. Kavita Nanda, an OB/GYN who co-authored the opinion for the doctors group.

“It’s unfortunate that in this country where we have all these contraceptive methods available, unintended pregnancy is still a major public health problem,” said Nanda, a scientist with the North Carolina nonprofit FHI 360, formerly known as Family Health International. …

Then there’s the price question. The Obama administration’s new health care law requires FDA-approved contraceptives to be available without copays for women enrolled in most workplace health plans. …

The doctors group made clear that:

—Birth control pills are very safe. Blood clots, the main serious side effect, happen very rarely …

—Women can easily tell if they have risk factors … and should avoid the pill.

—Other over-the-counter drugs are sold despite rare but serious side effects …

—And there’s no need for a Pap smear or pelvic exam before using birth control pills. But women should be told to continue getting check-ups as needed …

A cynical person would suspect that the ACOG is reacting to political pressure in two areas: (1) Helping the Obama administration to reduce the cost (actual and political) of Obamacare mandates by giving insurance companies an out (making “the pill” over the counter (OTC) may mean that insurance companies won’t have to pay for contraceptives for women who don’t qualify for free pills on the basis of income) and (2) acquiescing to the goals of the progressive left, which encourages, in any way possible, the break-down of traditional sexual mores and the nuclear family.

Contraception on demand has long been viewed by leftists as necessary for women’s “equality”. Leftists have a deep antipathy towards nature, which has disproportionately saddled women with the consequences of sex because, in their view, women are the ones who are “punished with a baby” as a result of indiscriminate sex, to quote Barack Obama. To a leftist, that’s simply not “fair”. And so, as seen by this policy statement from the ACOG, pregnancy is a disease to be prevented. An expensive one, at that.

Although the ACOG cites some risks associated with oral contraceptives, they seem to suddenly dismiss them, as if life-threatening blood clots are less dangerous to a woman’s health than an unwanted pregnancy. These doctors justify their policy change as if their most important goal is to prevent “unwanted” pregnancies. (As if preventing life is more important than preventing real disease and death.)

Perusal of the actual statement by the ACOG shows a distinct lack of concern about other extremely dangerous (and expensive) health consequences of irresponsible sex: HIV and STDs.   Yet another of their opinions advises women:

The best way to help prevent the spread of HIV infection during sex is to use latex condoms. … For best protection, condoms should be worn every time you have sex.

The ACOG doesn’t seem to consider the increased risk of acquiring HIV or another STD when women can obtain contraceptive pills OTC. Those costs to society aren’t factored into their analysis.

If women already follow the ACOG guidelines for condom use, then unwanted pregnancies should be greatly diminished. If they are not diminished, then it seems as if the ACOG’s HIV-prevention guidelines, policies, and programs should be revamped because unwanted pregnancies mean that women are also at risk for a worse consequence:  AIDS.

Instead, this new policy seems to encourage the abandonment of condoms. There’s no consideration of the added pressure that might be placed upon women by male partners. Men who prefer to not use condoms when a woman is on contraceptive pills could very well pressure her into unsafe sex.

When a woman sees her doctor for a prescription, that’s the one time that a caring and conscientious doctor has the opportunity to find out about and offer advice about her sexual practices.  If she’s not in a monogamous relationship, then the doctor should encourage her to do everything possible to prevent HIV infection, as well as other STDs.  That means using condoms even if she’s on the pill.

This opinion cites the cost to “society” of unwanted pregnancies, but does not cite the cost to society of the potential increase in HIV infections, when HIV is a REAL disease that is extremely expensive to treat.

Of course, there’s also nothing in this policy that addresses religious or social considerations.

Is it coincidence that at the same time, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that “emergency contraception” be made available in advance to teens? The AAP also wants teens younger than 17 to be able to buy the “morning after pill” OTC:

Pediatricians should actively counsel teens about “emergency contraception” and even provide them with prescriptions or products ahead of time, to ensure they have the pills if they need them, the American Academy of Pediatrics says in a policy statement released online Monday.

AAP members also are urged to advocate lifting the age restriction for these products. Currently, girls 16 and younger need a prescription to obtain the “morning-after pill,” as these products are sometimes called.

This is yet another goal of leftists: To liberate children from the oversight of their parents, by any means necessary.

The recommendation that pediatricians proactively consider giving “advance” prescriptions or actual emergency contraception products to patients stems from research showing that teens will use the pills if they have them, said Dr. Breuner [physician at Seattle Children’s Hospital; professor of pediatrics at University of Washington School of Medicine.] The goal, of course, is to encourage sexually active youths to use regular birth-control methods, she added.

How does giving CHILDREN an easy way to “fix” sexual irresponsibility encourage sexual responsibility (i.e., the use of “regular birth control methods”)?  All doctors, especially pediatricians, should discourage sexual activity by children and should also explain to them the horrors of HIV, which results from unsafe sex (i.e., not using condoms).  The same behavior that results in “unwanted pregnancy” results in HIV infection.

Which is the greater danger to the child and to society?

Those who object to their new recommendations are, of course, anti-science luddites:

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy supports wider access to all birth-control products, said Bill Albert, its chief program officer.

Parents and others may understandably have concerns about emergency contraception for younger teens, but those concerns seem “to be in conflict with the best science that we know,” he said.

Where in their “best science” is any concern that their new policy might make it easier for boys to be irresponsible with regard to condom use and harder for girls to resist engaging in unsafe sex, because of the ready availability of these “morning after pills”? Common sense, in this instance, would seem to trump their “best science.”

At least the Washington Times cites one critic of this new recommendation–Wendy Wright, vice president for government relations at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute:

There are too many questions to be answered, she said, such as what is the proof that younger teens are mature enough to be using these products. Also, what protections are being put into place to prevent girls from sexual exploitation if they could get these products easily, she asked, noting that some girls begin to menstruate as early as age 10.

I’m sure it will come as no surprise to regular readers that George Soros is a partner of and donor to FHI 360.  And the aforementioned National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy also has curious connections:

NCPTUP is funded largely by abortion rights and population control advocating foundations including most prominently the Susan Thompson Buffet, Turner and William and Flora Hewlitt Foundations. Various population control advocates are represented on the board including Planned Parenthood and their religion and values advisors include the Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board Chair, Catholics for Free Choice Board Chair and the president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Curiously, these same GLOBAL organizations are active in Africa and other Third World countries with regard to HIV/AIDS prevention.  But population control in the USA?  Can you say, Agenda 21?