Since you can’t stop kids from having sex, better to supply them with the means to prevent or end pregnancies than the alternative.

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning-after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.



  1. Bruce says:

    I guess my question would be, where do you fall on this subject? Curious of your thoughts of the issues that may arise.

  2. US says:

    Easier than practicing safe sex. This will make sex education classes a lot easier, tell them to avoid all the precautions ahead and just take the pill the next day.

    • msbpodcast says:

      I knew an extremely poor, lone, pregnant girl who lived in a tiny downstairs flat in Ville LaSalle (she was only 15) who was just like her mother (who was also extremely poor, only 30 and lived sans husband in the same tiny flat,) who really could/should/would have used a morning after pill.

      People tend to be serial idiots.

      I’m not sure if she ever made he link between fucking her cunt off on a friday night and getting pregnant.

      I’m a lib-tard but these people were unnecessary encumbrances on the planet.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        “lib-tard?” /// Well thats new. ….. Course, I got likewise irritated enough to add that as one of my nom de flames years ago.

        Thinking of going with transgendered neutered social activist as well.

        Ha, ha. “Tell me what pisses you off—so I know what groups to join?”

        What ARE these people Mpod? Smart enough to blog, not smart enough to think.

        Weird.

    • Gwad his own self says:

      The pills are expensive and the side effects are VERY unpleasant. It’s not something anybody would use in place of birth control more than once.

    • wow says:

      That’s why I took the seatbelts out of my kid’s car. Does nothin but encourage reckless driving.

  3. laxdude says:

    It only stops egg release, making it a souped up birth control pill – so safe sex is still needed as the egg might have already been dropped. It just closes the 4 dayish window that sperm remains viable.

    Now I wonder if this was a back door (heyo!) way to get birth control pills made OTC. Are not most over the counter medications not covered by health insurance?

    Anyone using condoms as birth control should have a dose sitting ready to take in case of a failure.

  4. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    “But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” /// Activist court striking down the socialist rules of the Administration???

    What “rule” is not subject to such interpretation> all the drug laws, all the anti-gay laws, all the licensing laws beyond certain performance and bonding requirements…. etc.

    Just the opposite of the Gubment “owning” all our kiddies. Kiddies determining their own course of life. Old enough to put it in, old enough to take it out.

    Makes sense to me. Doesn’t outlaw parental involvement after all.

  5. Hmeyers says:

    Many of you assholes — yes, you know who you are — fail to follow the “keep it simple, stupid” rule.

    That is all.

    You may now continue your politically-contaminated diatribes, already in progress …

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      HMyers–in your mind what is not simple about this issue?

      Minors need a prescription?==very simple.

      Minors don’t need a prescription?==very simple.

      What HMyers means by his post???===>Cannot be determined. Could be complex beyond the capability of the human mind to express, or so simple minded HMyers can’t even remember what he was thinking of.

      Life is like that.

    • Dallas says:

      Pls translate your solution/rule ‘keep it simple, stupid’ to apply to this topic.

      My gibberish to english program froze and I had to reboot.

  6. Grandpa says:

    The Christians will complain because they will be available in their airspace and can be paid for with same money they use.

  7. This is all very well, some would say enlightened, even, but I see three items that could make this come undone:

    1. Outraged backlash from the bible-thumpers, who don’t want *anybody* having guilt-free fun in bed, ever.

    2. Widespread lack of safe sex.

    3. Total dereliction of duty with regard to oversight and guidance by many if not most parents.

    I foresee way too much of #1 and not nearly enough of #2 and #3.

  8. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    Unconcerned Citizen says:
    4/8/2013 at 2:11 am

    This is all very well, some would say enlightened, even, but I see three items that could make this come undone: /// The only thing that would make this undone is a second lawsuit or an appeal that overturns this decision.

    1. Outraged backlash from the bible-thumpers, who don’t want *anybody* having guilt-free fun in bed, ever. /// F*ck them. There should be a law making that the case.

    2. Widespread lack of safe sex. /// that, it seems to me, would cement the wisdom of the decision into place. What am I missing? Hmm—yes, “safe sex” I think is still about not producing kiddies like rabbits rather than preventing STD’s. I missed the 60’s. I hear the ladies showed they are just as horny and indiscriminate as the guys are. Hard to believe…. but thats what I’ve heard.

    3. Total dereliction of duty with regard to oversight and guidance by many if not most parents. /// Thats pretty much a constant and washes out of any formula.

    I foresee way too much of #1 and not nearly enough of #2 and #3. /// I think I follow that….. and agree.

    Well Done Unconcerned. You are a cunning linguist.

    • Grey Bird says:

      I agree with UC on the talking points, but having had sex ed many years ago I remember what the term “safe sex” meant then, at least. It actually was a term of practices that was supposed to minimize both unwanted pregnancies and STDs, hence the emphasis on wearing condoms. Maybe they’ve changed the meaning of the term since the late 70s, but none of the kids in my state will likely ever know. I wasn’t aware, but a few months ago a local state rep. talking on a Sunday morning new show was actually bragging on how we don’t teach sex ed at schools any more. I was appalled! It has been proven that teaching safe sex practices has a significant effect on both unwanted pregnancies and STDs, but apparently some people don’t see that as a positive. The same phrase was running through my head over and over: “Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?”

      The ruling, hopefully means that we are starting to realize that not all parents are involved enough to teach safe sex and we need to account for that as a society.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        Yes, I think you are right. “I” was primarily concerned about not spawning kiddies.

        Projection. ….. always amusing.

  9. Irving of Berlin says:

    Overdue.

  10. pedro says:

    Great idea! It will certainly put a stop on STD spread. Cut that devil right off!

    While we’re at it, since there are other things kids want to do that are still unprepared to do and are not yet responsible for the outcome, let’s allow kids to have concealed weapons.

    Why having a legal drinking age at 21, let’s lower it to 12. And a lot of 12 year olds would love to be driving, They are already having sex, smoking and getting hi at that age, why not let them have wheels to go chasing tail?

    And if all this fails, let’s all follow MSNBC’s social engineering marvel of giving your kids to the community. What the hell can go wrong here, huh?

  11. pedro says:

    Also interesting to note, how liberuls do not get uncomfortable with big pharma having another revenue stream with the kiddies.

    • Admfubar says:

      liberals? odd that the conservatives own the big pharam corps.. :P

      i kept wondering how big pharma was going to get around the last round of lawmaking regarding this… i see they just bought off a judge to rule in their favor.

      • pedro says:

        Even though I was referring to people like you (the blog liberuls), it is interesting to note that you’re correct, only conservatives work or obey (as in get lobby money) big pharma, just as there are only conservative millionaires.

        Now, go back to your unicorn’s back and ride to your rainbow!

  12. orchidcup says:

    There is no such thing as guilt-free sex.

    If you don’t have sex you are made to feel guilty.

    If you do have sex you are made to feel guilty.

    The best way for parents to deal with the sex issue is to not talk about it with their kids and cross their fingers and hope nothing happens that produces a baby.

    Parents have been coping with sex that way for 100,000 years and the human species manages to survive anyway.

  13. MikeN says:

    Scientifically, the administration was on firm ground in overruling their experts and rejecting over-the-counter approval for all ages. Now I suspect the real reason they did so had nothing to do with science but was to support the position of Planned Parenthood which makes money from abortions. They even increased their quotas for all clinics last year.

  14. Guyver says:

    Youth appeasement. If one group screws up, then everyone loses the right to raise their children as they see fit.

    Basically government is stepping in by removing an impediment of having to get a prescription so as to avoid parental rights / notification. Hooray for big government dismantling the family unit due to the actions of some people.

    I wonder what other incredibly awesome things will come about if government forces society to simply appease those who lack any personal responsibility or accountability.

    • pedro says:

      Guyver said: “I wonder what other incredibly awesome things will come about if government forces society to simply appease those who lack any personal responsibility or accountability.”

      Study the “raise” of any third world country or communist regime and ye shall find the answers.

      • Guyver says:

        True enough.

        Chairman Obama unfortunately has us on the path of his enlightenment.

  15. BigBoyBC says:

    If these girls don’t bother to use birth control or insist on their partners to use condoms before sex, why would anyone assume they would bother to use plan-b after?

    Once again, the nanny-state is trying to mitigate the consequences without addressing the problem.

    • Gwad his own self says:

      Tell us what that problem is and how it SHOULD be addressed.

      Bonus points for giving an example of a society that lives by your rules and tell us how that’s working out for them.

      • BigBoyBC says:

        Personal Responsibility. Try it sometime!

        “…society that lives by your rules” Really? I never stated any rules.

      • pedro says:

        A failed liberul trying to play coy and asking others what the real problem is as if he doesn’t know.

        Pathetic is as liberuls do.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          A failed liberul /// Gwad is a most excellent liberal==unlike most others who rule the universe.

          trying to play coy /// No, he’s just curious to see if Big Boy is conscious or just a knee jerk. Its the nature of deities to show their love this way.

          and asking others what the real problem is as if he doesn’t know. /// I agree Gwad knows. We still don’t know if Big Boy does though. Doubtful about you too Pedo.

          Pathetic is as liberuls do. /// Yes, I know asking questions and engaging rather than issuing a list of talking points.

          Pathetic is, as pathetic does. Usually revealed by not being able to support what one says.

          • BigBoyBC says:

            It’s hilarious that the two of you felt necessary to criticize me for my “nanny-state” comment, rather than address my comment about the actual topic.

            You asked if I had a conscious or just a knee jerk (the term is ‘knee jerk reactionary’). It’s totally irrelevant.

            You and Gawd read into my comment a motive or intent based upon your own bigotries that was never there.

            After years of reading this blog, I’m convinced you don’t care what anyone says, you’re just interested in “gotcha” rhetoric to massage your ego.

            In fact, your ego will force you to reply with your typical nonsense, how pathetic you really are .

  16. sho off says:

    My wife and I used this as an opportunity to talk to our teens about birth control, safe sex, one-night-stands on Sunday afternoon.

    My son and daughter were both familiar with the product and its use. We reiterated our desire that they don’t have sex.

    We also said we understand what it is like to be young and stupid and assured them that we want them to use condoms and have safe sex, but if they don’t we would pay for and provide this product.

    We constantly remind our children the easiest path to poverty is teen pregnancy.

    Just like my Dad did when I was a teen. He drove me and my brother through the projects and told us “all these people live here because they got their girlfriends pregnant in High School.”
    It worked. No out of wedlock births, no divorces for all 3 of his kids.

    Tell your kids how it is or someone on You Tube will.

    • pedro says:

      I thought showing them teen mom would be more effective than talking about this stupid pill. Guess not.

      • Mr Diesel says:

        If that were the case then MTV’s Teen Mom crap show would stop all teen pregnancies. Nope, the little dumbasses are going to go at it like bunnies because that is what nature is telling them to do. Like it or not teen pregnancy was normal prior to shithead politicians telling everyone it was wrong to get married or have kids back in the 1800s. Birth control back then was anal sex.

  17. tj - the former catholic says:

    Brain development lags physical development. The brain is not fully developed until the early to mid 20’s. Partly because of this, teenagers often fail to consider long term consequences of their actions.

    Also, between the ages of 13-15 many start to question what they’ve been taught by their parents. They are much more concerned about what their peers think.

    This is a minefield for the best of parents to navigate. The child who has been taught that abstinence until marriage is the only good option may rebel. Likewise, the daughter of atheists may become enthralled with the faith of one of her friends.

    I now have a 13 and the rebelliousness has started to kick in. Ultimately he is a good kid and will do as he is told but he has been openly critical of some of the choices my wife and I have made in life. Fortunately my wife and I were not much alike as teenagers so he can’t really rebel too much against one of us without embracing the lifestyle of the other. ;)

    More concerning is his ability to make truly boneheaded decisions at the spur of the moment, – which he later regrets.

    My daughter is not a teenager yet but is extremely strong willed. I’d say she is less likely to make bad choices out of convenience or wanting to belong but I would not be surprised if she decides to do something just to defy us. If we really had an issue with one of her future boyfriends, I would not be surprised if she continued to see him on the sly out of spite.

    So I see Plan B as a good thing. Should it require parental approval? That I’m on the fence about. As a parent, I’d hate to see my 16 year old child be able to make a life altering decision without involving us but I suppose the reality is that they are making those decisions all the time.

    • MikeN says:

      The issue isn’t really parental approval, but are underage kids going to see the doctor as required? The experts said yes, but I think the answer is no.

  18. Bob73 says:

    I see that nobody has mentioned that these little pills cost forty bucks EACH. Apparently that’s not a problem for curious twelve-year-old children these days.

  19. DanWally says:

    My buddy’s GF used this and made him use a condom every time after. She said it was as bad an experience as she could handle.

  20. deowll says:

    Technically speaking underage females should not need those products and if they do somebody is a sex offender and the case should be followed up however legal drugs, wide spread underage sex and a totally hedonistic life style does seem to be the coming thing in the US of A.

    • spsffan says:

      “…does seem to be the coming thing…”

      Shouldn’t that be: seems to be the cuming thing ?

      What exactly is “underage sex” ?

      Under what age? Some states allow 13 year old girls to marry.

      Heck, back when this country was founded, a typical 16 year old girl would have been on their second child already. It’s all these new fashioned laws that screw everything up.

  21. bobbo, Jr culture Critic and totally self involved lover/voter says:

    BigBoyBC’s light slowly rises above the glimmer stage and says:
    4/9/2013 at 5:39 am

    It’s hilarious that the two of you felt necessary to criticize me for my “nanny-state” comment, rather than address my comment about the actual topic.

    You asked if I had a conscious or just a knee jerk (the term is ‘knee jerk reactionary’). It’s totally irrelevant.

    You and Gawd read into my comment a motive or intent based upon your own bigotries that was never there.

    After years of reading this blog, I’m convinced you don’t care what anyone says, you’re just interested in “gotcha” rhetoric to massage your ego.

    In fact, your ego will force you to reply with your typical nonsense, how pathetic you really are .

    ///////////////////// Bravo! I think you have it.

    Now, stand real close to a mirror. Any condensation?

  22. bobbo, Jr culture Critic and totally self involved lover/voter says:

    I went back to check. I did not respond to you (Big Boy) but rather to Pedro. I know…. what a waste of time, but even given that, so much better than responding to the null of your post, just as you eventually demonstrated. So demonstrative of the very complaint you threw against the wall. Ha, ha.

    “BigBoyBC says:
    4/8/2013 at 9:25 am

    If these girls don’t bother to use birth control or insist on their partners to use condoms before sex, why would anyone assume they would bother to use plan-b after? /// Ummm, to avoid staying pregnant and having a baby? Seems so OBVIOUS, you must be posting to make some other point than how blindly stupid you are? Let’s see what it is??????………((Dare we?????))

    Once again, the nanny-state is trying to mitigate the consequences without addressing the problem. //// Ha, ha. No. A complete Failure on so many levels. This thread is about the COURTS overturning the politicizing pandering nanny state interests. You know—that old bugaboo FREEEEEEEEEEDOM interest all individuals have. Even kiddies. Even girl kiddies. Even sexually active girl kiddies.

    How is providing a day after pill ANYTHING BUT addressing the problem?????? RATS!!!!====> A direct question twice asked now. I guess we’ll never find out what the problem really is……

    I hate it when that happens.

  23. GregAllen says:

    >>Since you can’t stop kids from having sex, better to supply them with the means to prevent or end pregnancies than the alternative

    This really is the basic calculation.

    As a parent you do your best to model and teach sexual responsibility to your children.

    But, ultimately, they make their own decisions.

    Nobody likes it, but it’s great that Plan B is there, if your daughter needs it.