Our teenage daughter has told us that the reasons for not being able to get her pill had to do with needing to have a doctor's visit and paying the copay- and then the ridiculously large "copay" for the pill itself, which at $40 is more than it should cost anyhow. And she has excellent insurance. Granted, some of that is her personal irresponsibility with money (as she would have the $$ taken care of if she used it well) but some has to do with the hurdles. She is one of the many dirt poor, unemployed, not in college kids we don't want having undesired pregnancies. Now that she is over 18, I hope this isn't going to be an issue, but perhaps I should just go pick some up and put a box in her stocking for safe keeping. It's not like the stuff is cheap, either.

Planned Parenthood makes it available on a sliding-fee scale. And perhaps if it was available on the shelf, good old capitalism would cause stores to compete with one another over prices. But, we, women, can't be trusted. Again.

It's not as if standing firm would have made him any more hated by those who hate him. After that speech in Kansas, I had some hope that he'd turned around...

Lorraine ~ unfortunately, moronic and caveman era politics still rule the day in too many areas of our lives!

it's a shame. politics is an ugly, ugly game.

The CWFA web site makes no mention of this decision. It does, however, continue to lambaste the administration for its contraceptive stances. So, they're not going to suddenly love him because they got their way. When is he going to learn this lesson?

Lorraine--there's an interesting comment thread on Big Salon today, Robert Reich trying to convince readers that the new improved 2012 Candidate Obama will be any different than the last three years of President Obama.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/the_obama_weve_been_waiting_for/

The article is interesting just for the comments thread, where someone used the exact analogy of Lucy and the football. And a whole lot more people express their utter frustration with Obama's grand bait-and-switch on too many issues to list.

I'd like just one indication of Obama doing anything without caving to the right. One thing. Anything.

I've used it 3 times in the last 14 years, and the first time in 1998 it needed a script, the other two, I walked in and got one from the pharmacist or pharm tech in less than five minutes, with ID. A call to your family doctor can get a call in for a script (without a visit, and they can call that to the pharmacy), any friend you have over 17 years of age can buy it for "herself", but it is still a prescription chemical that could cause blood clots and can't sit on the shelf. Although the age of consent may vary from state to state, it is never 11 years old. Failure to use contraception during sex after the morning after pill but before your period can result in a higher chance of pregnancy, since ovulation is often delayed but not stopped. Taking more pills doesn't increase likelihood of prevention, and doesn't guarantee it will work.

There is no perfect answer for the problem, and it would be great if the US was more comprehensive in all its approaches to sexual and reproductive health. It would also be great if there was a universal and totally safe contraceptive (not abstinence) and there is not. It would be great if contraception (and abortions) were free of charge for anyone asking. I am just thrilled they didn't take away access for adults who can actually legally consent to sex, which makes me sad that we are still so far behind the ball on human rights (not just in the US, but in the world).

Oryoki. I hear you. The first time I needed to get it, I was informed by the receptionist at the doctor's office that they didn't prescribe it. It turned out she lied to me, but I didn't find out until I had gone to Planned Parenthood. And I was an adult, had used the same doctor for over 10 years at the time.
I know nothing is 100 percent safe. But pregnancy and illegal abortion still kill more women.
You and I are in agreement. A perfect world would be one where women were in full control of their reproduction.

[r] well said.

I really don't want to sound like a conservative here. I do agree with you that women need to have control over their reproductive decisions, I really do. Currently, parents can take their daughter to get birth control pills, though I don't know the minimum age for it. But do we really want young girls having free access to this stuff?

We all know that they do not have the maturity to make sound decisions. Heck, most of us don't when it comes to men and sex. I can easily see these girls going every day to get a morning after pill, not knowing or caring that this could seriously damage them. I can see young girls sharing their pills with their friends. This is what parents are for- to make sure the kids learn how to be responsible and make it to adulthood.

Yes, I wish that parents actually taught their kids how to protect themselves, but they don't. But we don't need the lawsuits that would result from the misuse of these items. Talk about a set back.

phyllis--I do hear you. Honest. But what's the alternative? More abortions? More pregnancies? I don't have the answers. But I believe that the precedent set by the Secretary today now makes the Democrats a party that kowtows to the illiberal horde and ignores the science.

As a H.S. teacher with 160 students, I have:

5 pregnant students
3 on home-bound 6 week leave, gave birth.
And 90%, I would wager are active.
As well as 30% between the ages of 14-18, Already have children.

The hospital next door is Catholic, so they will not fund our free clinic. We must fundraise each year to provide those services.

Unfortunately, I actually had a girl freak out last year and tell me, "Ms. A! I'm pregnant... I don't get it, we only had sex once, and he pulled out!".

(shakes head).

I suggest education. Really teaching these kids exactly what can result from having sex in graphic detail. They are ignorant of the facts. I would love it if they had access to birth control and their parents couldn't say no to it. We know they are gonna screw. Help them be intelligent about it.

I have to agree with the decision today, though. We are a very litigious society and the first time a girl ODed on these things there would be hell to pay.

And here's a thought. How about a lawsuit to make them reconsider and do it safely. As you say, Obama is going to be disliked either way.

Don't worry -- if he has a second term, he'll do it. My feeling is that he just doesn't want to give the nutjobs another hot button issue to bandy about in their misleading campaign ads. "Obama Wants Teens to Have Sex," or something idiotic like that. Cowardice or pragmatism? Who knows?

Or maybe just politik, which is rationalized cowardice.

Thanks for this Lorraine. You called it. It is as heinous as anything Bush ever suborned with birth control and HHS.

Certainly more eloquent and reasoned articles will be written on this issue, but I'm still as angry this morning as I was last night. This administration PROMISED that it would pay attention to scientific fact, and it has turned its back on this promise.

Mind boggling. ~r

yes and yes

and in related insanity the idea that a teen must get parental permission to abort....these morons don't know that it's forcing a teenage girl to ask her rapist or her rapist's brother/sister for permission? these people aren't up to the challenges of the tenth damned century

r.

After a couple cups of coffee, I thought of the things I wanted to say. Rather than write a new blog post, I've added these thoughts to what I wrote last night. Thus, the update.

FLW, I understand you are “angry.”

But the remarks made by Phyllis45 and John Blumenthal apply.

I hope you consider them carefully.

In any case (and tangential to your main thesis here), the more Obama gets slammed, the better the chances of someone like Newt Gingrich getting into office…and if someone like Newt Gingrich wins the Oval Office, the better the chances of Supreme Court Justices like Scalia and Thomas get appointed rather than like Ginsburg. Keep your eye on the prize; think strategic rather than tactical.

Or…go with the anger. Whichever you see as the best course of action.

Frank,
I appreciate what you're saying. But first of all, the women who support Newt were NEVER going to vote for Obama in the first place.
And you and I both know that the pro-choice folks have no choice but to vote for Obama.
Please tell me that you are not saying that the president is not someone who can be criticized, and criticized in anger for decisions that affect the lives of all women of child-bearing age.

Respectfully.

I am oddly conflicted about this. A liberal by nature and heritage, I'm no fan of limits on women's repro rights, but a drug so consequential being sold over-the-counter to any age girls? The idea of it just makes me slightly uncomfortable. You mention science, but for me that has little to do with it. The drug itself may be mostly safe, but I still think young women and girls should have some guidance here. What about STDs? I worry that this will make kids think if they skip the condom they still have an out. Don't get me wrong, I want young pregnant women to have an out if they need one, it's just that...I don't know. I guess I need more time to think on it.

"To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals -- to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives."
~ Barack Obama


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What bullshit! More lies, false promises and more caving.

Remember this come next November!!!!

I was likewise disappointed in this decision. Nine out of ten problems we face regarding this planet are the result of too many humans trying to live on it. Those who do not want to make any more new ones are to be commended.

I want to believe what Blu and others are saying--that as soon as we're past the next election cycle, Obama will do what's necessary (which means, I think, a combination of availability and education).

Honestly, though, the idea that once again contraception falls on the young shoulders of the female bothers me. If Plan B becomes available, can we please try passing out condoms and tell the young men to take some responsibility? Or is that now and forever a cultural impossibility?

Nikki,
I keep thinking about how this is always the promise: next time we'll take care of you, we swear. I wrote about it when I divorced the Democrats--how as much as I love them--they're faithless. Always chasing after some mythical right-wing voter who is going to see the light while their women sit home, wondering when they're going to come home and keep their promises.
They had the power to block Alito and Roberts' nominations. They chose not to.
That was the last straw for me. And then Obama got elected. And yes. He's done some tremendous good. But he made two promises on the day he was elected: he was going to close Gitmo, and he wouldn't let ideology trump science.
Got fooled again.
Don't know what the alternative is. But I do know that if perhaps enough women and men raise their voice and remind Obama that we voted for him, that we need him to do what's right, he'll remember. And get over the idea that those crazy women at CWFA or the Family Research Council or Pat Robertson are suddenly going to see things his way.

FLW, thanks for the response. Let me assure you that I am as furious as you about the treatment women get in our world. I have fought against the double standard for as long as I can remember…essays and op ed pieces going back 30 plus years.

And I agree that the president CAN be criticized.

I disagree about doing so at this time, however…because I think anything that hurts Obama’s chances for re-election are equivalent to helping elect Newt. (And nearly as I can see, if not Newt, someone much, much, much closer to Newt’s thinking than to Romney’s will be the opponent.) (Read Safe Bet’s Amy’s remarks for why I am concerned!)

Several people here have given logical arguments for why the decision not to allow the drug as an over-the-counter item is reasonable.

I think “the cause” (of not dumping on women or their rights) is furthered best by not slamming Obama—particularly something as “the jury is still out” as this item. That essentially was what I was saying. And, out of respect for the right of others to disagree, I even included the “go with what you think is best.”

Tough, unfair world we live in right now, FLW. I want so much for it to be fairer and less straining. I feel you do also. But we have differing ideas about how to proceed toward our shared goal. I just wanted to share my sentiments on this particular issue with you.

Good points, but the fact remains, we need a leader in this country who is not influenced by political threats, jingoism and rhetoric of the right. If we consider the position of leadership at all, we have to consider how to lead, you can't steady a wobbling ship from one side or the other, you balance it in the middle. The argument is not in winning the political candidate that will fully support your views, but in convincing the people of your view and mutually supporting and voting for the candidate that reflects that. The work on the ground is not done, the right is better at it, they have moral and religious qualifiers that the rest of us on the left don't believe in. We have to keep fighting their ignorance on the ground and elect the nearest thing we can that supports our thinking and throw our effort of support behind that person. They cannot randomly proclaim any one point or idea as right without support. It is our business to give them that support. It is our mission to keep chipping away at the right and their lies, their views and their power.

I have had some political experiences. Once a major party player told me if that I brought legions of voters before him, he would change his tune on a pillar idea of the party to mine, which was quite volatile to our then mutual party's belief. I called him a prostitute, a political prostitute. He was incensed. But I was in effect correct. Right at the core of every bit of this is always power and greed. It has nothing to do with morals, that is the mere methodology used to move the large voting beast around. As long as they get the power that is all they care about. That is why Obama is still the leader that you really want. He is more than about the power. He is actually trying to do something for the people and that is evidenced in his work thus far.

The idea that the leader, such as Obama, does what every progressive liberal wants without regard to the apparatus that puts him in power guarantees him failure and any policies that he creates weak enough to be killed off in the future. Strength comes from the people who make the power complete and real. We have so much to over come. The job is never done. We don't just elect someone and say, go for it. We have to keep defending and pushing. We have to keep educating and seeking opportunity to change those led by the other side. We have to keep on striking back. The OWS movement is the tool that can actually carry some of the progressive agenda forward. It is a process, but it is fighting the very same kinds of interests and enemies that keep women and their reproductive issues hostage. The very same.

The right set out to do something a couple decades ago, maybe three by now. They wanted to have significant power, so they went more conservative to attract large blocks of voters, they embraced these large blocks of voters on several key points. They are reaping the rewards of that now.

Abandoning Obama is not really the answer now. We got him in there, and abandoning him now will only lay waste to what he has accomplished, which has been significant. We need to keep pushing our issues and making our case amidst the noise of the right until we get the foundation to make our changes possible and permanent. It seems that none of this happens fast enough, but I remind you, they didn't think we should vote, own property or have the right to work or be educated. Those things changed. Now we have to change entire institutions of religion which propagate anti women belief and rhetoric , these institutions for their own interests have melded to the conservative right and are the real power behind the Republicans currently in addition to big business, they are the marriage made in hell for women and progressives. That big business is the same one using their marketing ability and manipulative strategies to make the most of the religious ideologies to form their coalition of suppression of women.

In all fairness I should stop here. None of what I say is new or earth shattering. It is perspective. Leadership takes courage, but unless it is a dictatorship with an army to enforce it, it is not enough for leaders to say, yes, this is correct or this is wrong, they need support and that means numbers, strength and backing. That builds the power, sustains the choice and gives true change. Just a thought. Okay, I am done now, wanders off....

@ Frank: sorry dude, but I'm not letting you get away with this one.

The quote is President Obama's. His administration has now proven that he lied (again). THAT bears remembering come November.

BTW, as to your "now isn't the time to criticize" comments: Now is EXACTLY the time to criticize and attempt to change things. NOW is when we have any power at all!

As for me, I refuse to move to the center-right with the rest of the Democratic sheeple and I refuse to settle for "Newt Lite" just because he's not AS big of a lying hypocrite.

Bottom line is that we need a viable, progressively liberal third party because the Dempublicans are now centralists at best.

The only way this can happen is for people to support (feet on the ground & financially) and vote for third party candidates until they win.

Anything else is giving up to Republican Lite incrementalism that is seriously eroding both women's reproductive and human rights.

Amy, I am not disputing the quote from Obama…nor am I disputing that a case can be made that he has broken promises and implied promises.

I am taking issue with anybody unreasonably assuming any politician will keep promises.

Promises are made to suggest an ideological perspective (this is what I would do if I could)…and to get elected. Expecting that promises will be kept is, in my opinion, unreasonable. They do provide an insight into what the individual would do if it were reasonably possible. Obama is giving his views; people like Newt are giving theirs.

By all means, I support your right to suggest that we “remember this” (Obama’s broken promises) come next November. Perhaps with your help, America will be rid of him and have someone like Newt at its helm.

Not sure why you think that would help on women’s issues, but I am sure you have your reasons. Personally, I think it would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

Nope, Frank. Not gonna take the blame for this election loss.

Fact of the matter is that Obama and the Dempublicans are moving away from us, not vice versa. He and his party are in search of that imaginary centralist / neutral position and he has left the most active part of his base behind.

Truth be told, Obama has lied from the get go. He ran as a progressive. He campaigned as a liberal. He's governed, however, as a neoconservative.

So if Obama and the Dems distancing themselves from the progressive left and abandoning women's and human rights mean they lose, so be it.

It can't be much worse then now and it will do nothing but wake a few people up so that they support progress and real change instead of "more of the same" and republican lite politicians.

So, after some musing on the subject what I think is this: First of all, the age of consent for Plan B should be brought down to ...perhaps 15. True, the prescription requirement is dumb, no one has time for that on the morning after, but there has be a reasonable cut-off age. If a girl younger than 15 finds herself in need of the drug, she simply must have a friend or older family member get it for her. This way at least one other person knows she's sexually active (besides her partner). Perhaps this slightly older teen or trusted adult can help guide her future actions. Shouldn't someone know that an 11-14 year/old is having sex? What if there's abuse involved?

As for the politics, that's another subject entirely I think...quite apart from the age of consent. I happen to be suffering from politico burn-out of late so...lemme see. Is Obama a craven pol who will do anything to get reelected or an honorable man who finds it necessary to be pragmatic during an election year? Who the hell knows anymore. Likely the answer lies somewhere in-between. I like to think he's honorable, but politics will bring the stank out in anyone.

Amy, you wrote: Nope, Frank. Not gonna take the blame for this election loss.

And I am not going to blame you.

But the further damage to women’s rights that will come at the hands of someone like Newt Gingrich is not going to be lessened or exacerbated by assigning blame…or mitigating it. The damage is going to be done...and it is going to be huge.

Look…do as much damage to Obama as you can. Put as much effort into teaching him a lesson as you can muster; I don’t think there is much chance of him being re-elected in any case. We are, in my opinion, going to have a Newt Gingrich, or someone very much like him, leading our country starting January 20th, 2013.

We’ll see what happens then.