the anti-morality crowd.
The consequences of this will be grave but it will be blamed on the pharmaceutical companies... not judicial activism or a liberal agenda. This will hurt everyone. |
|
|
Look, will dumbed down parents go for this pill? Since public education is now brainwashing kids on global warming, sex, climate, Green, why not pills and condoms? That is why the public rarely stands against all these liberal policies to take the control of a kid's life out of the parent's hands. Feds love to take control and the parents , now over stressed nowadays, say yes. So our kids suffer from this liberal view of sexuality, politics, science and history. No wonder Obama is so supported, according to Pew at 63%. No one wants the responsibility of teaching morality, setting standards or getting scientific facts rather than emotive facts so they give up control to the Feds , State officials and then wonder why their kids turn out to be moral wrecks. |
|
Allowing minor females to self administer large amounts of estrogen without any medical history for family cancer or bleed out potential is just savage.
They'll be acute medical catastrophes here for sure but what about the long term harm? Developing young women; twenty years down the line? What is their potential for early cancer and reproductive misery if they are un-monitored and can access these levels of chemistry without professional review?
Teens are still children, y'all. |
|
|
See you gotta understand- terrorist's need to be protected so as to uphold our "liberal democracy" even though they aren't offically enemy combatents from a legitimate country. Interrogation techniques must be exposed even though the terrorist's are privy to our techniques and the extent we will go or not go in the war on terror (opps its not the war on terror- its Men behaving badly or some such moniker-) but this is all done to uphold our "liberal democracy". So now we have young girls who could be exposed to health dangers and possible abuse, neglect, death or disease BUT we do it in the name of "liberal democracy". If you catch the drift it appears all restraints in life should be lifted and freedom without inherent responsibility should be enacted at every level. Since there is NO danger anywhere in the minds of leftists (except from us conservative- traditional values types) we can safely let all boundaries disappear! Oh, what a philosophy of life! |
|
Aren't the same folks who are pushing to let minor-age females take "Plan B" (I guess "Plan A" is "Hope you don't get pregnant"?) the very same who rail against "Big Pharma" and the FDA's "lax" drug-approval practices?
I wonder if a Liberal pro-choice parent will have the first minor child to die from taking Plan B (without parent's knowledge). I wonder if that parent will sue the drug manufacturer.
This is really going to drive up the STD rate among teens and young adult women. |
|
|
or FDA in charge of giving my kid any pill of any kind? There are laws against forced medications on nut jobs running loose in our society but to give a minor,MY minor a pill to prevent pregnancy is sooo over reaching their authority. What's next abortions without parental consent?? Ah... wait they did that too. So we have no say any more over our own kids. Maybe we should take another look what the real reason is for the Lefts fascination of abortion and procreation in general. |
|
|
at its worst.It is a stripping of parental rights . |
|
We would rather risk a terrorist attack than cause significant discomfort to someone with actionable intelligence because it threatens the well-being of terrorists.
And now we would rather risk the well-being of young girls than compel them to seek assistance of a family member because it would cause them significant discomfort. |
|
Just look around you. The Courts are ever present, manipulating our lives along ideologic lines- parental consent, pirates in a NY court, overruling public opinion, deciding over end of life actions, on and on.
"Just wait, things could be worse. So I waited, and things got worse." |
|
One packet of 2ea = $47.38 on average. This taken after coitus within 72 hours. The dose is: 1 tab by mouth every 12 hours X 2 doses. In case you might want to sue:
The manufacturer is Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The mechanism of action is rather complicated and I would wonder if in an under age, 10 to 15 maybe, might have problems in the future having children. I would like to hear from a specialist on that one.There is a whole bunch of drug-drug interactions: at least 22! You, if you are a parent might want to see your pharmacist, counsel with your child. Adverse reactions: many but include vomiting, diarrhea, menstrual irregularities, headache, abdominal pain etc. Adult and pediatric dosing, yes: pediatric, is basically the same. |
|
Isn't have consensual intercourse with an underage female considered: rape??
But, we have in the past had manufactured a condom for adolescents. Yes we did; I saw it advertised right next to the flavoured, x-tra large, ribbed etc...
Talk about a lawsuit probability: sue the judge first! |
|
|
Another idiot judge making yet another idiotic ruling in this day of idiocy. |
|
This is stripping parents of their right to know what is happening with their minor children.
#1, if the government and organizations such as Planned Parenthood would STOP giving underages girls birth control, this would actually make it so that parents and their kids would have to engage in conversations about sex and protection and having access to that protection.
#2, I am providing my children's health benefits, so they should not be able to have any sort of drugs without my consent.
#3, They are minors. They have no right to privacy from their parents because WE are the ones raising them and know what is in their best interest (at least most responsible parents do).
This is just giving kids an excuse to be more careless. It's not solving the problem. (Oh, we don't need a condom! We can use a back-up plan later!) It also won't stop the spread of STDs. |
|
|
You guys should be thrilled to have Plan B available for girls of ANY age, as long as it’s medically safe! This prevents pregnancy! A teenage girl won’t have to even consider getting an abortion if she takes this pill, and it works. Isn’t that a good thing? |
|
American Sweetheart wrote:
#1, if the government and organizations such as Planned Parenthood would STOP giving underages girls birth control, this would actually make it so that parents and their kids would have to engage in conversations about sex and protection and having access to that protection.
How would that make girls talk to their parents, or parents talk to their children? If there was a good relationship between parent and child, there would already be a conversation. It would have started years before the child was sexually active. BTW, a conversation is a two way thing and involves input from all parties.
|
|
maggie wrote: Why is a judge in a liberal state or FDA in charge of giving my kid any pill of any kind? There are laws against forced medications on nut jobs running loose in our society but to give a minor,MY minor a pill to prevent pregnancy is sooo over reaching their authority.
Maggie,
Let me explain, neither the FDA nor the Judge is giving your kid (or any other kid) a pill. Your kid is choosing to take the pill.
On the other hand, the nut jobs (your words, not mine) chooses NOT to take the pill.
You seem to confuse allowing someone to do something with forcing them to do something. There is a big difference.
|
|
I have to have not only a doctor's prescription and her supervision to take 1mg of Estradiol to make the mid-life transition without making everyone else crazy, I have to be monitored as to side effects and overall effectiveness.
Would you please enlighten us as to how a very large dose of estrogen, given a young girl in a panic situation, without her parents' knowledge or permission (and likely w/o knowledge of her own family medical history), and with potentially dangerous side effects that will only be discovered too late, 'empowers' her?
We're waiting. |
|
|
children are not possessions. If you have lost touch with your daughter to the extent that she's having sex when you instructed her to be abstinent, it isn't likely that she will come to you to tell you she had sex. Is a pregnancy the punishment you wish to impose on her for disobeying YOU? Of course it is. This is about controlling your daughters even though it is clear you don't have any idea what she might be doing in her life. Did Bristol have sex in her own home with Levi? Where was Todd? Where was Sarah? What is wrong with you people? My kids didn't have sex before they were adults because I kept a pretty short leash on them--no cars until they were 18, serious curfews. Taught them values too. Somehow, if you are a responsible person, you don't end up accidentally preggers anyway. I had two kids--each pregnancy occurred about 4 months after I went of the pill, and one month after I stopped using birth control. No accidents. |
|
According to Wendy Wright with the CWA:
"It can cause blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. Women who are sexually active should be regularly tested for conditions that may not produce symptoms."
Very few drugs work perfectly. Just about every drug has side effects that arise because the drug is flowing throughout the body and may affect parts of the body unintentionally. For example, aspirin is a drug that relieves pain, but this same drug can also erode the stomach lining and thin the blood.
Do we stop anyone from buying aspirin without a prescription? NO.
The side effects of Viagra include little things like headaches and big things like heart attacks. Do we prevent men from taking Viagra because of these POTENTIAL side effects? NO.
|
|
|
I pray to God that when it;s time for you to reproduce, you have piglets.... |
|
In case Rachel doesn't respond:
The FDA is charged by the judge with determining appropriate dose for this pill. It does not appear to require the kind of medical scrutiny as a prescription because it isn't being taken on a regular basis (hopefully). There are a zillion over the counter medications that can harm, if taken inappropriately.
After what the girl put inside her vagina, it's a little late to be act so concerned about what she put in her mouth. What parent would say no to preventing an unwanted pregnancy? |
|
"This is stripping parents of their right to know what is happening with their minor children."
If you're not letting the kid out of the house by herself, she wouldn't need to go to the pharmacy. If you are, then you're the one giving up that right.
Aren't most of these complaints really parents asking the government to help them control their children? |
|
...is the only freedom guaranteed by the liberal constitution. Freedom of speech? Shut the heck up if you don't agree with us. Right to bear arms? Forgit about it. States' rights? Huh? Whatz that? High taxes = involuntary servitude? You're stupid.
Society and Mother Nature have played a sick trick on us. Girls used to mature at age 15 or 16, and got married soon after. Now we end up with the awkward situation where parents are responsible for dealing with the sexuality of their minor children.
The libs see parents' involvement in such a "private" area as something to be avoided. Let the kids have a much sex as they want with whomever they want. And let the state and the schools help them do it. Keep the parents out of it.
Some parents don't want to deal with it. They are willing to turn a blind eye and let others figure it out. A pox on their house. Parents have the responsibiliy and therefore the right to be involved in their children's health, physical, sexual and emotional.
17-year old girls are still minors. And of course, there is nothing to say a 17-year-old can't buy the Plan B for a much younger girl. If a prescription is required, giving the pill to someone else would be illegal. |
|
...thing you've ever said on these blogs. A parent gives up their rights when they let their child out of the house by herself?
I'm one to really stick it to their parents and force them to take responsibility for the sexuality of their minor children. If your minor son impregnates a girl, your and the girl's parents should pay for the support of all involved.
No fair the over-taxed tax payer paying for some little gang-banger's orgasm. I'm against abortions but they are legal. However, they should not be performed on the taxpayers' dime. The parents should pay.
It the parents want to teach and closely supervise their kids, that's terrific. If they don't, THEY should provide the kids with birth control, Plan B, abortions or support the baby.
Once we start having financial reponsibility placed squarely where in belongs, on the heads of the parents, pregnancies, abortions and illegitamate births will all start going down. |
|
...but it is a consequence. It is in fact a very NATURAL consequence of sex. Because biologically speaking, sex is for making babies.
Biology WANTS the female to get pregnant. Half the adult females I know who have children, got them while "taking precautions" and doing it right. I myself had an unintentional pregnancy not once, but twice: got pregnant the day my period was due, once during an (unknownn to me then) irregular cycle, and once a year AFTER surgical sterilization. It happens. (One of those babies is almost 6 years old now; the other was a natural miscarriage.) How much more likely is it to happen when young nubile women, every bit as affected by hormones dumping into their system as if they had alcohol - and even more receptive *because* they are in a fertile phase of their cycles - follow the drive to reproduce? Of COURSE they get pregnant. It only takes once. In fact, the very time their fertile bodies are saying YES IT IS TIME NOW...is exactly when they would conceive.
I personally think that if young people were taught that hormones are as much an influence on their brain function as alcohol, they might be able to recognise what's going on before they get drunk on it. And then again they might not. Still, forewarned is possibly fore-armed.
Still....a child can't take so much as an aspirin at school because of 'zero tolerance' policies. They can't even hand out candies that might LOOK like pills, for the same reason. Or draw pictures of guns. Why is this different? |
|
It makes absolutely no sense that a teenage girl can get Plan B without a prescription and without a parents permission, but her high school can't dispense Tylenol for a headache without permission from her Mom....
A$$ backwards, that what this decision is... |
|
|
is to be handed out without a prescription. In Europe this drug is given by prescription and a substantial number of deaths result even though the "patients" are under a doctor's care. How many women will die if this is handed out over the counter? This insanity is promoted only because abortion is invoved. Nothing must stand in the way of the Left's holy sacrement. |
|
...who were giving up their babies for adoption. Sociologists ran an anonymous study. Out of the 50, only one attributed her having sex as to a strong, hormonal desire to have sex. The rest felt social pressure from girl friends and even more so pressure from their older boyfriends. They had sex to fit in with the girls and to keep a boy. If they didn't put out, some other girl would.
Back in the '50s, 30% of high schoolers had had sex. Now it's way over 60%. Way the change? We all know. In the 50s there was huge social stigma, more if one got pregnant. Now viriginity is stimatized.
In some neighborhoods there is a 70% illegitimacy rate since the government pays for all. There's more at play here than simply sex. Whatever it is, it's not a good thing.
Not good for society, not good for the teens and especially not good for babies born into these horrible situations. Even couples seeking to adopt have trouble as so many girls abort or keep their babies. |
|
...but her high school can't dispense Tylenol for a headache without permission from her Mom....
That is only because of one of the worst decisions ever... ZERO TOLERANCE.
And in case you did not notice, the Plan B pill is not being dispensed at the school. It is being dispensed at a pharmacy, as an over the counter drug. That means a licensed pharmacist is involved.
|
|
The so-called 'Morning After' pill is NOT the same as RU-486.
The 'Morning After' pill can prevent a pregnancy up to 72 hours after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. But it isn’t an abortion pill—it can’t terminate an existing pregnancy. It certainly carries risks, but nothing like the risks of RU-486, which is specifically abortifacient and absolutely has been associated with a number of deaths, including a few in the USA. However, *if* it is true that Plan B may slow the descent of a fertilized ovum into the uterus, then it *might* contribute to a greater risk of ectopic pregnancies. Those are indeed very dangerous, emergency situations. If this is going to be a problem, it will become more obvious as more and more people take it, and the data becomes available. |
|
"And in case you did not notice, the Plan B pill is not being dispensed at the school. It is being dispensed at a pharmacy, as an over the counter drug. That means a licensed pharmacist is involved."
Hmmm...that involvement of the pharmacist...does that involve anything more than looking at a driver's license? Is he getting any kind of health history from the girl?
Bottom line...gov't (and the courts)is making the decision here... not parents, not doctors....
I'm amazed that doesn't bother some of you...
|
|
"Bottom line...gov't (and the courts)is making the decision here... not parents, not doctors...."
wrong. The decision is made by the young woman. She decided to have sex. She decides to take Plan B.
Folks, if you teach (as I did) your children why they need to be abstinent (and no, it isn't for morality reasons or because you said so, it is for tangible reasons like you don't want to get a STD, you don't want to get pregnant or get someone pregnant, etc), and you teach them self-esteem, most kids really are not out there looking to have unprotected sex. For the most part, unprotected sex happens when young people are creating plausible deniability. If you don't use a condom, you had sex in the spur of the moment, heat of passion. The condom indicates premeditation. If your kid thinks you will kill her or him, then they will go for the plausible deniability.
Now, I happen to think that meds like this should only be distrib'd with a doctor's supervision, but since that has already been decided (no doctor if 18 and over), the 17 age thing is kind of irrelevant.
|
|
I cannot speak for your pharmacist but when I fill a prescription, or purchase something over the counter, my pharmacist take the time to tell me how to take the medication, what side effects I might encounter and what to do if something goes wrong.
Pharmacists are much more knowledgeable about the drugs they dispense than are most teachers or even school nurses, most also care about the persons they serve.
|
|
|
Children are a responsibilty of parents. Those who scream "children aren't possessions" miss the point entirely. Children are separate human beings with CERTAIN unalienabe rights. Until they are of age: with emotional maturity and able to fend for themselves in this world- they remain the RESPONSIBILITY of their parents. The assinine view of a black and white distinction is the albatross of liberal thinking. It goes something like this : If I am truly free I can do whatever I want/ If I am under any authority then I am a slave and can be abused. The fact is freedom implies responsibility in every aspect of life. Get a job and learn a new skill: 1st you watch someone perform the task and then you slowly become involved in it yourself. Then you wean yourself into greater and greater independence. The dumb idea that in general a minor of 17 years old or younger (which is the goal) is somehow of the mind and emotions to be able to make these types of decisions is absurd. Sure there is child abuse and there are systems set in place to help in that, but to coerce the responsibilty of parenthood to a licentious free for all in the name of freedom is itself ABUSE! Which of you would throw the car keys to your 13 year old and say "go take a spin in the jalopy?" |
|
Do you still think like a 17-yr old or have you grown up in your thinking? If you are grown up you of course teach your kids that sex is not only something that feels good and is pleasurable, it is the one act that has profound and lifelong consequences. Untimely pregnancy (and this is something we stressed to our boys) makes you a parent forever, regardless of the outcome. Some venereal diseases (and there are over 70 compared to the few that were around when I was growing up) stay with you for life-and it is females who are more vulnerable to contracting them. Your [male] pride is no excuse to put a girl at risk for consequences she will be the one to bear the brunt of. You see, YOU can simply walk away. She can't. Taking a pill or having a 'procedure' doesn't change that. Do you not see the larger virtue in not only teaching, but insisting that your kids wait till marriage? And expecting that other authority figures (schools, perhaps?) will be on your side, instead of helping silly kids sneak around?
Do you give your kids filter cigarettes so the chance of developing cancer is merely 'reduced', or do you tell them it's really better NOT to smoke in the first place? If not, why not? After all, nobody gets cancer from just one cigarette. It takes years, as opposed to 24 hours, for any adverse effects to show, if they ever do. To hear the hysteria over smoking, you'd think cigarettes were handed out by the Devil himself. (I'm sure he's happy to have you think so, too)But we're supposed to believe that permitting/encouraging/removing the possibility of tangible consequence so silly kids can engage in sex with a 'reduced' chance of pregnancy or disease is being 'realistic'? |
|
Liberals HATE responsibility!
That's why they're pro-abortion. That's why they want more welfare. Free health care. Term limits.
They don't accept or want responsibility for anything.
Notice how rachel always blames Bush for everything. Nothing is Obama's fault at all. Recession? Bush! (not Dem contolled congress last 2 yrs of Bush admin.) 9/11? Bush! (Not weak Clinton foreign policy and bungling intel)Cat got out? Bush! (not rachel leaving door open.)
It's a sickness. A mental disorder. |
|
As to the Plan B, what does that have to do with OTC medications? Does that still justify putting a female at risk for stroke, heart attack, infertility? Or are you thinking along the lines of, well, you got what you wanted, so whatever happens to her is her problem?
Nice guy! :/ |
|
|
You are right. For a moment I had thoughts I was speaking to rational beings, but now that you mention it.... |
|
Luna writes:
Julie,
I cannot speak for your pharmacist but when I fill a prescription, or purchase something over the counter, my pharmacist take the time to tell me how to take the medication, what side effects I might encounter and what to do if something goes wrong.
Luna: Are you 17 or 18 years old?
I HAVE a 17 year old...they think they are invincible....whatever a pharmacist goes on and on about, while well-intended, will likely go in one ear and out the other. The smartest kids, who WOULD listen, aren't having sex at this age....the ones that are, they likely won't care what the pharmacist has to say...which is why, under any other circumstance, the parent is responsible for the child.
If you had a 17 year old daughter, LUNA, would you mind if she were taking a drug without your knowledge?
As a responsible parent, I DO CARE.
|
|
President Camacho will make this available to his daughters so they don't have to be "punished" with the "mistake" of a "baby."
Oh wait a minute, he WON'T know if they're taking it thanks to this ruling. Now ain't that a horse biting the donkey on the arse? |
|
President Camacho will make this available to his daughters so they don't have to be "punished" with the "mistake" of a "baby."
Oh wait a minute, he WON'T know if they're taking it thanks to this ruling. Now ain't that a horse biting the donkey on the arse? |
|
No, liberals understand the responsibility issues. It is you conservatives that seem to miss the point. If your daughter needs Plan B, she's already gone off the 'reservation'. She's having sex. Didn't you teach her not to have sex without marriage? Why is she still doing it? Or do you think that the only kids having premarital sex are those of liberals?
I'm not pro abortion. Abortion should be the last resort and then only in accordance with Roe. Again, only lib kids having unprotected premarital sex?
The rest of DTOM's comments...talking points that are irrelevant to this topic. Seems to me that losing is a mental illness, and you folks can't seem to get over that.
No one is forcing your kids, like Bristol, to have sex. |
|
you make no sense. Your daughter will tell you everything, right? You're a responsible mother (because the rest of us are not, lol), so she knows she shouldn't have sex at all at that age, right? And if she does, she's been taught to be responsible, use protection, right? And if the protection fails, she knows she should come to you so you two can sit down and start planning her wedding and baby shower, of course in that order because the child shouldn't be be born out of wedlock, right?
Give your pomposity a rest, Julie and others. Was Levi Johnston's mom a lib? The drug dealer? And Sarah, a lib, is that why her baby got preggers?
You conservatives are amazing. You act like liberals are forcing your conservative sons to have erections to have sex with and impregnant your conservative daughters, and then the libs either force feed the drugs to your daughters, or force them to have abortions.
Or do you define responsibility as taking Plan B and having the child? Obama's kids are like mine, moral without having to tell you all about it like you conservative wankers. |
|
No, liberals understand the responsibility issues.
*Sure. You understand that responsibility is for other people and you should yourselves avoid it at all costs.
If your daughter needs Plan B, she's already gone off the 'reservation'. She's having sex.
*My daughter will have the child, get a job and raise that child if she is "old enough" to have sex. If "Plan A" is have sex and hope you don't get preganant, "Plan B" is raise that child.
Didn't you teach her not to have sex without marriage? Why is she still doing it?
*YOUR dam* liberal public school curricula tries to undermine every decent thing we try to teach our kids. It's a constant battle against your morally repuganant garbage. God fobid the kids learn science and math! They gotta hear about Heather has 2 mommies, how to put on a condom and how Sodomites have butt sex.
Or do you think that the only kids having premarital sex are those of liberals?
*Mostly, yeah, it is.
Abortion should be the last resort and then only in accordance with Roe.
*That's what all the pro-abortionists say. That's why black teenage girls are having 5, 6 abortions before they hit their mid-tenties.
Again, only lib kids having unprotected premarital sex?
*Again, mostly, yeah. Mostly Democrats' kids with a "do it if it feels good" mentality.
The rest of DTOM's comments...talking points that are irrelevant to this topic.
*Code for "I can't argue DTOM is too good!"
Seems to me that losing is a mental illness, and you folks can't seem to get over that.
*You would know, loser. You can't argue so you fall back on name-calling. WEAK!!!
No one is forcing your kids, like Bristol, to have sex.
*No, but the liberal media tells 'em it's OK. The gay movement tells 'em it's OK to have gay sex. The media says their "prudes" if they want to abstain. NO abstinence curricula is allowed in the schools.
So in a way, THEY ARE FORCED.
|
|
If you're not letting the kid out of the house by herself, she wouldn't need to go to the pharmacy. If you are, then you're the one giving up that right.
Kids don't sneak out without their parents' knowledge sometimes? They don't do things they shouldn't when their parents aren't home?
Parents who keep their kids chained in the basement are sent to JAIL.
Some parents who homeschool their kids and try to teach them morals and give them a meaningful education are punished by the courts and made to send their kids to public school, where they can learn all about gay sex, condoms, masturbation and how to score drugs.
|
|
And liberals are not responsible? Look at your ridiculous post.
You are blaming 'liberal public school curricula'? LOL. What a whiny excuse monger you are! Bristol was homeschooled, no? If public schools are so awful, send your kid to private, Catholic, or home school? Constant battle? I have kids. They followed our rules, no one else's. Why is it that you conservatives, with your religion, and churches, and morality, find it so hard to fight the fight that most of us win every day? My kids did well in school, got into great colleges, and are doing well there. My younger one is two quarters into college, but already a second quarter soph because he did well in his AP and Honors classes. We're planning his summer school trip abroad so he can get more fluent with the foreign language he took in HS and college. He took science thru physics and math through calc II. Sex ed class now and then, but not very many. You are so bitter.
"Or do you think that the only kids having premarital sex are those of liberals? *Mostly, yeah, it is." HHHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAA. Yeah, Bristol's the aberration. Nutter.
You're crazy about the number of abortions. Not only that, you don't care about any black girls except to use them to make yourself feel superior.
For people who are so responsible, it is always the schools and liberal media. You are the ones who are simply incapable of controlling your kids. If you are in control of your children, then lib abortions and lib use of Plan B, or illegit lib babies are not your problem. But you know that it is your kids who need Plan B and who need the abortion choice, and this is why parental consent laws fail. Conservative moms and dads want to make sure there is a choice.
|
|
You really are crazy, aren't you?
I had two kids. They did not get cars until they were 18. No, my kids did not sneak out because we live about 2 miles from the nearest bus, and we had full time live in help. No, they were not alone and they were not doing bad things. They were not chained, they were happy, well-adjusted, doing their homework, practicing their musical instruments and sports, one son in scouts.
After they moved out, they were also good kids, responsible kids. Just because yours were not, you think you can judge the rest of us?
"Some parents who homeschool their kids and try to teach them morals and give them a meaningful education are punished by the courts and made to send their kids to public school, where they can learn all about gay sex, condoms, masturbation and how to score drugs."
Name one.
|
|
This is not the same "Julie" that you were verbally assaulting earlier, but I decided to come to her defense.
I have a 16-year old daughter. She's a fabulous kid, and I'm not the overbearing type. But as a parent, I should be informed of every single medication she takes until she's 18. Period.
For decades, liberals have pushed to have teenagers taught about sex and birth control, not by their parents, but by the government-run schools. Now they want to take away our supervision of our childrens' medications?
No way, sunshine. If the age of emancipation is 18, parents should have the legal right to know everything until then. |
|
Ah, that explains it! You had live-in help and lived too far (2 miles!) for a healthy child to walk to get into trouble.
My budget doesn't allow for live-in help, and we live within walking distance from all sorts or trouble. Still, I would not trade my life for yours for anything.
DTOM is not crazy. He is practical. And intelligent. And can actually see what is going on in our society.
Tell your doctor to cut back on your Prozak, Larraineanne.
(The second Julie) |
|
"But as a parent, I should be informed of every single medication she takes until she's 18. Period." I don't disagree. But, if you and she have that great relationship, she'll tell you, no? Surely you don't think that 'liberal media' types have more influence over her than you do? If so, why is that? Keep in mind that just because a 17 year old can get the meds, that presumes that they won't tell their parent only because of their conduct, not the pharmacist's, not the government's.
One event in my life that I will never get over is the death of the girl next door. Sunday morning, beautiful day, we hear a woman's shrieks and cries. We look out, and our next door neighbor is in tears, beyond consolation, screaming. We went out to see what was wrong, when her husband came out of the house, with their son, both also beyond consolation. Why? Their daughter, the boy's sister, dead in her bed, from an illegal abortion done by the girl up the street. Pre Roe, obviously, and Catholic girl to boot, Catholic school, all that. Somehow, despite devout Catholic training, all that, she had sex, got pregnant, and was ashamed enough to have an abortion. Nothing liberal about the media then. School didn't teach her about sex or condoms.
|
|
"For decades, liberals have pushed to have teenagers taught about sex and birth control, not by their parents, but by the government-run schools. Now they want to take away our supervision of our childrens' medications?" No, they don't. This isn't a lib/conservative issue at all, why you righties feel compelled to make it one makes no sense to me.
The ideal is your child is honest with you. The ideal is you let the child decide, with your input, what is best for her. If you have a child and she knows that you think premarital sex and abortions are a sin, she isn't going to share anything with you. And yes, she might end up dead, not because libs made her have sex or have an abortion or take a pill, but because your relationship with that girl is flawed. That isn't because you are a conservative, per se, but I have to think that if your child is like Bristol Palin and she knows she really has no choice, she will exercise the choice she finds. Like the girl next door to me, she may die because you impose your values on her and those values clearly did not take.
If you don't like the ruling, then file suit. Otherwise, stop pretending that libs caused this problem. If your daughter needs Plan B, she and some boy's pen-s caused the problem. What happened to all you taught her? Your religion, your values, are so weakly taught to her that she is swayed by the 'liberal media'?
|
|
Almost everything you wrote in your 8:35 post is BS. Yes, I expect that a good mother/daughter relationship will result in good communications, especially about important things like birth control and abortion.
Yes, I DO think the liberal media has more influence over my children than I do. It is perfectly natural for kids to rebel against their parents and go with the "popular" attitude. So far, I've managed to teach my kids good values, despite all of the other influences.
I am very, very, sorry about your neighbor. It is horrific that women sometimes find pregnancy a condition worth risking death for. But that girl didn't die because I "imposed my values" on her. She died because she chose to do a risky procedure rather than be "saddled" with a baby.
And pardon me, but don't make assumptions about my religion. I never mentioned that. |
|
A family member was given this medication (under a doctor's supervision) after a sexual assault. The side effects were severe enough for her to need additional medication to help with the nausea, cramps, etc. She was 3 weeks past her 18th birthday. It's not the issue of privacy that the teen wants, it's the medical problems that the parent needs to be aware of. My big issue with this being over the counter for anyone is that it will lead to more unreported assaults when the women and girls in question will not get the treatment (medical and psychological) that they need. After all, won't an older sister or friend get these for a younger teen in trouble? Then when the parents find out after a suicide that they could have been there to support their daughter, who can they blame? The judge?
For people who simply forget to take their pill, it isn't hard to call the Dr. or go to an urgent care and get a Rx. |
|
Re "I would like to hear from a specialist [about this drug]". Jim, you already have heard from a specialist, a whole bunch of them. Before the FDA approves a drug, the company that developed it and wants to market it must submit all its research data, which are reviewed by pharmacologists, pharmacists, chemists, and physicians. There are multiple meetings with company representatives. Then an advisory committee of experts in fields of medicine and research relevant to that particular drug is convened, studies the data further, and makes recommendations. The company may be required to make changes before the drug can be marketed. The company's lawyers work with FDA scientists to construct informational material that accompanies the drug when it is sold. A drug is not approved for over-the-counter sale unless it is thought to be safe for administration without a prescription.
Understand, ALL drugs carry risk. Heart patients take Coumadin to prevent their blood clotting---and it can cause a bleed in the brain eg a stroke. The common aspirin can cause bleeding in the stomach and intestine. An antibiotic pill can trigger an unsuspected allergic reaction. No drug is 100% safe in all circumstances. If the benefit is thought to be worth the risk, the drug is used. |
|
How is the FDA forcing your child to take a pill?
The agency's job, as defined by Congress, is to determine two things: 1) is a drug efficacious (does it do what the manufacturer says it does) and 2) is it safe ENOUGH for human beings to use it provided they use it as indicated. The FDA doesn't really care whether your daughter takes the pill. It sounds as if you do, though, so maybe you should be working with your daughter to discourage her screwing around. Then she won't need to worry about having an inconvenient pregnancy---or about taking the drug.
On the other hand, there are indeed agencies and institutions that appropriately involve themselves with questions like "is your daughter ready for sex" and "if she isn't, why is she having it"---surely your community has social service agencies, counseling clinics, and churches that will gladly help you with this problem. But for this purpose, the FDA is irrelevant. Its scientists think in terms of biochemistry. That's what they are trained to do. That's what Congress mandates them to do. That's exactly what they are supposed to be doing. |
|
Grown women can't get the lose-dose (birth control) pill without a prescription but they want to allow kids to buy the high dose (which could have horrendous side-effects) over the counter!?!
|
|
|
the potential customers for plan b are the very people who can afford to raise a baby. those who cannot afford to raise a child are comitted by the welfare system to have as many as they can before chlamydia scars up their fallopian tubes so that they cannot have babies. the battle has already been lost (if you are a responsible citizen, won if you are a democrat) the parasites now outnumber the hosts, and the parasites get to vote. there is no point in arguing about abortion, plan b ( same thing) contraception, or welfare. the decision is in, and the workers lost. we will continue to prevent the productive from having whildren, while the parasites breed like bacteria. welcome to obamaworld. |
|
A 17-year old needs parental consent to get her ears pierced, to open a bank acount, to get a medical or a dental proceedure done, but given Plan B no problem?
Furthermore, an aspirin is considered contraband so if a 17-year old girl is carrying an aspirin, Tylenol or Midol in her purse she will be suspended from a public (government)school, but Plan B is OK?
I smell a lawsuit brewing, especailly in states, such as Florida where parental notification is required.
|
|
Leave our children alone, I dont mind you trying to find cures for things but you cannot even run this Country Properly what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK YOU KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN.
QUIT IT NOW SCUMBAGS |
|
to Pills...
We didn't have to endure Levi , Palin & their White TT family on the TV.
But they need a bulk COSTCO sized supply !!! |
|
|
To bad your momma didn't, racist palinphobe |
|
You really don't know the whole story... what about the so called 'fast track' drugs to treat politically correct diseases like HIV/AIDS without the research being as stringent as other mainstream drugs?
And to have a drug company say that high dose drug such as this one has no empirical or research data concerning the efficacy in pediatrics? What drug company has doses for pediatrics for this kind of medicine?
The so called 'judge' in this case has been quoted as saying that ALL young females should be able to get this drug. That judge has no business making this kind of decision and should be removed or resign. And this doesn't bother a lot of people?
I would bet and win saying that this drug in females as young as 12 could more than likely lead to problems with their childbearing abilities later on.
And what percentage is it effective in actually preventing pregnancy? Then you have two choices if it does not work: abortion or let the pregnancy go to full term.
Personally, I think that anybody who thinks this drug is OK for children should never have any. And I don't think that: I have no control over my children and the little bunny rabbits will do IT anyway...
Another way to define child abuse. |
|
...is an adult.
I would not suggest that 12 year olds start taking this pill, but then again I don't know too many post-pubescent 12 year olds. |
|
The FDA has decided that the age of consent is now 17.
There are no longer any valid statutory laws regarding underage sex with a minor (17) which should make lefty males ecstatic.
It is now legal for adult males to cruise for underage girls to have sex with, and as the legal age for purchase of these drugs drops, so will the legal age of consent.
You will see this mentality borne out in the courtroom, as the purchase and use of these drugs presupposes that the minor girl is consenting to sex.
Leftists should be happy about this and should be thankful that the govt. has codified their permissive/submissive ideology into law.
Got a minor daughter, Raechel?
Please post her picture and location, to help her practice her new lack of parental supervision. |
|
|
Party of gay sex and pedophilia. |
|
I am tired of fighting the progressives on issues pertaining to abortion and birth control. Maybe there is comfort in knowing the people who use this drug may die and this can be perceived as a cleansing. After all, Obama has continued the culture of death and this trend comes complete with CFO suicide, Polo Horses dying during a match, abortion becoming the biggest export from the USA, suicide rates on military recruiters increasing.......hey when we voted for change DEATH WAS ON THE TABLE. After all, a culture of life is just for those people who cling to Guns and God.
Maybe if Obama treated the unborn and Bush's legal counsel team with EQUAL COMPASSION to the people in Guatanamo, this would be a better country. |
|
|
Once again, the judicial branch has shown us just how irrelevant they are. It may be time for an amendment to completely abolish them or severely restrict their power. I also believe we need to remove the restriction protecting judges from bad, bad decisions. Make them financially liable for poor, poor judgments. The parents of the first 17-year-old to die from this should OWN this judge, lock, stock and barrel; make an example of him. Make them liable for their drivel rulings and they'll think twice before trying to rule by fiat. |
|
about this? No one is making your children have sex before they are adults. Don't give me that nonsense about 'main stream media' or 'Hollywood'. These are YOUR children, your homes, your money being spent on entertainment. Are you seriously contending that you have no control? Why can't you control your own children?
Why must you demand that the government control all children because you apparently cannot control your own? Why do you try to censor the world simply because you cannot control your own children's access to information and entertainment?
Do you realize just how close your values are to those of fundy Islam? |
|
So, you think that 3/4 of the states will vote to abolish 'the judicial branch'? Which part of it? You think we need courts to adjudicate disputes?
Do people like you even understand the Constitution and the separation of powers? Do you understand that courts are supposed to determine things, not just rubber stamp some particular point of view.
"The parents of the first 17-year-old to die from this should OWN this judge, lock, stock and barrel; make an example of him. Make them liable for their drivel rulings and they'll think twice before trying to rule by fiat."
Courts are doing their constitutionally articulated jobs. If a 17 year old dies from the medication, I think the parents should be looking inward, not outward. Why wouldn't their 17 year old be candid with them? Where are they?
|
|
"Yes, I DO think the liberal media has more influence over my children than I do." Spare me your lack of responsibility. Your tv has an on and off button, but some of you seem to think you needed that 'v' chip. You can listen to what the popular music is, but you need labels. Clothing? Why would any parent allow their children to wear things the parent finds offensive? When my older son was 10, he wanted to go bungee jumping. I told him, no, when you are an adult (18) knock yourself out. Funny, he's never done it.
Stop making excuses for your kids. Stop imposing rules on my kids because you cannot control yours and want the government to step
into your shoes.
My neighbor was 15 years old. She was a religious girl who got pregnant. "Risky procedure"? Is that how you see an illegal abortion in 1969? A 'procedure'? Try an unsterilized coat hanger shoved up the girl's vagina trying to dislodge the fetus. You argue that the government has to prevent a 17 year old in 2009 from getting the Plan B drug, but in 1969, when we were all a lot more innocent, that 15 year old analyzed her situation as a 'risky procedure'?
If you are a Christian, you surely do not act like one.
Stop blaming the 'culture'. When we have kids, they are our responsibility. If your religious and moral training of your children is checkmated by 'the culture', then you have done a sorry as- job of parenting. |
|
1) It is not my children I fear. I teach them well and communicate with them well. I'm not afraid of the culture, nor do I blame this ruling on the culture. What I do fear is a government that feels it can do a better job of determining what is best for my child than I can. That is what is happening here. This is only a camel's nose in the door. What, will they next tell me how to discipline my child? Or, will they determine what age I should be FORCED to get my child birth control? This is the beginning of tyranny.
2) I DO understand the Constitution. I do understand that the judicial branch was put into place to ensure our government does not infringe on our rights. A 17-year-old, though, does not have a "right" to Plan B, particularly without the consent of their parents. For many years, now, courts have been overstepping their bounds to rewrite laws as they see fit. That is NOT their job and is NOT numerated in the Constitution. In fact, the founding fathers expressed their concern that the judicial branch would fall into this very form of tyranny.
As for parents raising their children, remember, a parent is charged with protecting the child, as they see fit, not as government sees fit. Children do not always talk to their parents, and this is quite frequently a result of their immaturity, not necessarily a problem on the parent's side. That's why a 17-year-old cannot make these kinds of decisions with out MATURE input.
Liberal: someone who sees a terrorist in every church and a friend in every terrorist camp. |
|
"Liberal: someone who sees a terrorist in every church and a friend in every terrorist camp."
Which website has that 'clever' talking point? Is your brain compartmentalized so you must talk silly?
"1) It is not my children I fear. I teach them well and communicate with them well." Good for you. Then the Plan B issue isn't an issue for you. Why do you feel you have the right to interpose your belief system on others, which is what you want to do by stopping sexually active 17 year olds who may not have that relationship with their parents from gaining access to Plan B?
2) "I'm not afraid of the culture, nor do I blame this ruling on the culture. What I do fear is a government that feels it can do a better job of determining what is best for my child than I can." No, that isn't 'what is happening here.' No one is telling YOU anything. You have a great relationship with your children. This won't be your problem. . |
|
3)"will they next tell me how to discipline my child?" Hate to tell you this, but they already do. CPS will be at your door if you cross the line. Are you suggesting that you can beat your children, and if the govt. puts you in jail for it, the government is wrong?
4)"will they determine what age I should be FORCED to get my child birth control?" Why do you jump to such nonsense conclusions? Giving a 17 year old woman access to Plan B is symptomatic of the situation where communications between parent and child have broken down, not your situation again. Besides, if you know your child is sexually active before 18 and you don't help with the birth control, you are irresponsible in my opinion. I know you on the right don't believe your kids ever have sex, and that if your daughter gets pregnant, it is because she had sex one time and hit the pregger jackpot (like Bristol,LOL), but if they are having sex and share that with you (close relationship, right?), you should make sure they use birth control instead of clicking your heels together and hoping for the best.
"This is the beginning of tyranny." All of the Founders are rolling in their graves. You have no idea what tyranny is. None
|
|
You say that a 17 year old does not have the ‘right’ to Plan B, “particularly without the consent of their parents.” Golly, gee, you think your 17 year old in utero has rights independent of the parent, but your 17 year old, likely high school senior doesn’t? How the heck does that work? Your 17 year old has sex (which you didn’t authorize or consent to, I’m assuming), and wants to avoid a pregnancy. And you are jumping up and down that you have the right to control what she does, she has no rights, they are your rights? She’s chattel now?
You simply want to control her sex life. That’s all. And Plan B might mean no more actual abortions, which will really cut into your protest time.
You want the government to make sure your child obeys. You said this...children who aren't talking to their parents, so the government steps in to force them to listen to you? What if you don't want her to have PLan B? Will you force her to go to court and get an order to do it?
The right in this country are collectively failures as parents. You don't want government intervention until you do. Hypocrites.
|
|
|
we already charge 17 year olds as adults in many criminal matters. Stop the nonsense. |
|
|
I mean, you can just break your TVs and radios, withdraw them from school, sit there while they have friends over and monitor every word, refuse to let them date until they're 21, do not let them go to college, escort them every single place they go, give them no money, dress them up like Laura Ingalls, and never let them see a movie or listen to music or go on the Internet. And then the Marxist crapheads will knock down your door and charge you with child abuse. |
|
The FDA answers to Congress. You would not believe how often officers of the FDA find themselves before Congressional Committees or answering phone calls from the office of a Congressman. It is Congress, not the FDA, that passes laws. If Congress passed a law saying that nobody under age 47 could buy this drug OTC, the FDA could not countermand that. All they could do would be provide scientific evidence as to whether, in scientific opinion based on data from controlled studies, the drug would or would not be safe or efficacious in a population above and below the age of 47. The FDA people are primarily biological scientists. They think in terms of biochemistry, physiology, and pharmacology (the action of drugs on the body). They may recommend, but they may not legislate. The agency exists to carry out the requirements of the Food and Drug Act. Wikipedia has a very good summary of the history of the FDA.
Before you conservatives are so quick to criticize and condemn federal agencies, how about you inform yourselves about the work the agencies actually do? |
|
|
Yes, we've seen this raving lunatic before. |
|
|
I would point out that recent changes in the FDA have been a direct result of Republican administrations representing the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and of citizens' groups pushing for less regulation controlling their lives. AIDS just happened to turn up during the Reagan administration, when the "fast-tracking" of drugs was a response to pressure by the pharmaceutical industry and the anti-regulatory community. That was also the season when the FDA was forced to allow pharmaceutical companies to judge their own research data and decide for themselves when a drug was safe to market. Decisions to foreshorten the period of investigation were based on politics and social pressure and not on science. The same applies to Bush II's insertion of political ideology into science at the FDA. Example? Candidates for drug advisory committees, previously selected for their expertise, under Bush were vetted for whether they had voted for Bush and how they felt about Roe v Wade (even if the drug under study had nothing to do with reproduction). If they gave the wrong answer, their candidacy disappeared. Another example? Scientific findings were re-written to reflect the ideological position of the Bush administration. |
|
|
I commented on this this morning. These guys who use different names are pretty disingenuous. If they had any conviction they would stick with one name. I guess as we start to ignore their ignorant rants they try again. I also think they are stupid enough to think that we will believe there are more of them that believe their garbage. You can tell by the post exactly who they are. |
|
|
I have no idea what percent of social conservatives hold this opinion, but I have seen on townhall posts stating the view that NO prescription should EVER be necessary for the purchase of ANY pharmaceutical product. They don't want a physician or the pharmacist or the law intervening between themselves and the drug they believe would be helpful to them. When asked how they would, gosh, KNOW what drug to buy, they say that the doctor could "recommend" or they could do "research" on the Internet (and somehow one does think of TV advertising at this point) but that in the end what drug they buy should be solely their decision. So, do they have an age requirement tied in to this fantasy? |
|
|
Uh, no, that was a bunch of druggies wanting unfettered access to all kinds of opiates and 'caines. |
|
"Yeah, why can't you control your kids? "
Seriously. That's YOUR job, not mine, not the media's, not the government's. YOURS. If your children are so weakminded that a song, a movie, a tv show, has more power over them than YOU, their parent, then I feel sorry for you. Same with school. My son came home one day with a book that he said 'sucked'. I read it. It was an inferior novel, in my opinion, assigned because the author was Mexican American. I met with the teacher and expressed my views. Learning point for both of us. It remained on the reading list, but the teacher ultimately was far less offended by book reports that critiqued the writing style as well as discussed the point of the book.
But you folks are too busy to go to school, right? YOUR kids are most influenced by what they see their parents and families do, not what some actor or singer does. But keep your myths going. Just don't pretend you are somehow responsible adults because you aren't so long as any problems that occur are the product of the 'culture' instead of your actions or inactions.
|
|
You are absolutely right. None of the rest of us have ever thought to go to our kid's school and meet with their teachers and review what work they're doing. Wow, what a concept. Thanks for suggesting that!
Good thing we have such great examples of maternal responsibilities such as you to help guide us poor, wandering hicks on how to raise our kids. Now, if we could only get govmit to help teach us how to do it... |
|
if you righties didn't whine about all those outside influences that make your kids incorrigible, I could care less what you think.
And you too miss the point. The government doesn't teach you how to take care of your kids. You take care of your kids. Rightwing kiddies are celibate and always abstain. They never drink, they never swear, they never ever do poorly in school. They are perfect, except when they are 'imperfect', and then "god" or "jesus" forgives them.
Spare me the nonsense. |
|
All those properly taught and strong minded kids would never, ever, even consider having sex or access pornography or catch an STD or get pregnant or use drugs, just like they see all the kids on TV and the movies doing, just like they hear, day after day after day, on the radio and their IPods, even when their teacher shows them how to put on a condom and they go to classes extolling the wonder of gayness. Nope, not even raise a blip of interest because of the strength of their convictions. Because we all know that all teenagers stand stoic and heroic against all forms of peer pressure and ridicule from their not-so-enlightened classmates, who have, woefully, not the experience of good, wonderful, brilliant teaching from wise and wonderful parents, who bear Solomonic strength and insight....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry, couldn't keep doing it.
I suspect a few of you are absolutely clueless about what your kids are actually doing. But, don't worry, you'll find out. |
|
|
All of you benighted, slow witted conservative parents are not to object when the coarse, sex addled culture bombards your home with prurience. But, let somebody say the word "God,"... |
|
All of you are such victims. Not.
Why is your home 'bombarded' with 'coarse, sex addled culture'? No off button on the tv? No ability to subscribe to magazines that are 'wholesome'? You victimize yourselves in order to eliminate your role, your responsibility.
ALL sex ed classes have opt out provisions. What is wrong with you, too lazy to opt your kids out? Too lazy to know what the curriculum is before it is taught? Too busy at your megachurch worrying about gay marriage to deal with your own family? Someone else's fault, and if your kids have issues, they are imperfect, the devil is taking them over! LOL. Identify ONE class in ONE public school in ONE US city where anyone extols the 'wonder of gayness'. Telling young people that people are gay is not
extolling gayness anymore than saying that there are short people in the world.
"Nope, not even raise a blip of interest because of the strength of their convictions." Apparently conservatives want to be passive and then complain.
"Peer pressure and ridicule from their not-so-enlightened classmates". You are a horrible parent if you can't teach your kids the self-esteem necessary to avoid peer pressure, but, again, you'd have to look up from your own work, your own busybody life, and take care of your kids.
"I suspect a few of you are absolutely clueless about what your kids are actually doing. But, don't worry, you'll find out." My kids are fine. No pregnancies, no stds, and frankly, boring lives. They vacation with us even now, one with fiance in tow. We taught them right from wrong, stupid from smart. Why don't you spend some time doing that instead of worrying whether 18,000 gay couples who got married in CA impact on you.
|
|
|
The TV was off, and nary a word of sex titillation was heard. Sex ed was opted, and the kids sat in their study hall with a Bible open before them. "Gay" retains it's original meaning of carefree happiness. Self actualization achieved, without reference to friend or peer or that foreign 'other.' Mom, in her apron, Dad in his smoking jacket, Ozzie, it is truly a wonderful life. |
|
the majority of us live just fine. Our kids grow up just fine. they become productive adults.
Libs don't blame the culture for things. You conservatives are just fearful people. You're afraid of illegals, muslims, gays, and 'the culture', kind of like the Taliban is. |
|
|
...because they created the culture. Gay sex, cocaine and pedophilia, whoopee! What libs fear is individual thought, self-reliance, restraint, and responsibility for one's action. Those things ruin the party. |
|
Libs 'created' the culture? Really? We tie people up and force them to buy porn and drugs, right? LOL. All those entertainment corporations are run by libs, right? Like GE? Like Fox? Ever watch a Fox 'entertainment' show? LOL. Girls gone wild, that's hardly a bunch of west los angeles or manhattan babes on the run, mostly southern bleached blonde sorority girls. Natalee Hollaway, out there in Aruba partying with multiple guys--little miss mid american.
It seems to me that the way you conservatives blame the 'culture', you have nothing on us libs for fearing "individual thought, self-reliance, restraint, and responsibility for one's action."
|
|
|
Libs relativized truth, and made all standards subjective. The culture lowered, celebrating emotion over thought, experience over ideas, the self over God. Ozzie and Harriet became Married with Children as the public schools scorned the heroic and the patriotic. Now you want to be titillated, you want someone to make everything good. You are libertines and mediocrities, focusing on who runs a company, rather than the ugliness of your premises. |
|
give us a break, man.
Libs? You act like porn sells only in LA or NY, that the meth labs in Wasilla are run by libs. And that libs force feed you all.
If you cannot control your children, your fault. No one else's. You can keep whining, but it is your fault. |
|
I HAVE SEEN YOU SPEAK ON TV, FIRST, ARE YOU EVER COHERENT? DO YOU WATCH TO SEE HOW YOU SOUND AND APPEAR? I WANT WOMEN TO HAVE ALL THE SAME PRIVILEGES AS MEN, BUT YOU DO NOT MAKE ME PROUD TO SAY YOU ARE ONE OF US!
SECOND, YOU LOOK UP TO B. OREILLY AND LIMBAUGH
WHICH MAKES TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHTS AND PRIVELEGES OF UNDERAGE GIRLS FOR THE USE OF THE MORNING AFTER PILL SEEM SOMEHOW LIKE THE PUNCHLINE OF A VERY SEEDY GOOD OLE BOY JOKE! BOTH HAVE TARNISHED REPUTATIONS FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
YOU SHOULD DO THE REPUBLICANS A FAVOR AND JUST BE QUIET! |
|
Do you really believe that you have complete control of your children? Please!
Unless they are under the age of one, they are making some decisions on their own. And rightly so. Overbearing parents who control every aspect of their children's lives are hurting, not helping, their kids develop.
And exeye is right. The culture DOES make a difference. You are right, too, that it is the parent's job to fight against this, but it is a pretty strong influence.
Your comment about meth labs in Wasilla was way out of line. What about meth labs all over the country? You seem to have a Sarah Palin jealousy complex. |
|
|
Uh, what? I'm sorry, I don't speak the affective, bumper-sticker language of screaming leftists, so your points are the price of tea in China (mull it over. Take your time). But let's take your one actual idea, that if you cannot control your children, it's your fault. That's true, if your children are Stepford kids. Are yours? |
|
If you are so sure the your 17 year old daughter will never need Plan B, why do you care if mine or anyone else's daughter uses it?
Why do you care if it is available to 17 year old girls without a prescription?
Why do you feel the need to control MY child?
What she does or does not do is of no concern of yours. So go worry about your own daughter.
|
|
You don't have to be a "screaming leftist" or a Republican't to fact check. case in point, her statistics on carbon dioxide its' levels and effects on the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency, as reported by Reuters April 17,2009, you know the agency that monitors the greenhouse emissions and it's direct effect on the environment we live in(?), their facts and Bachmans' opinion are diametrically opposed. She stated that we exhale carbon dioxide all the time,it's "just a natural event"? Honestly! Does she really think that is the extent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? check for yourself. just type in: EPA/carbon dioxide, and the emission reports are there from a reputable source. Or don't check if you either, don't want to find that her facts are in error or you don't care about the environment you live in. Checking facts can be done whatever your political preference but when either party gives information
it should be accurate don't you think? I check both left and right info for truthfulness. Before i retired from nursing, the last 24 years working in a specialty area, i was in charge of the epuipment and chemicals used in sterilization of our instruments. it was part of my job to know the OSHA and EPA rules for safety. and part of my job to stay current in EPA rules and regs.
So stick that in your teabagger mentality!
|
|
I don't want my beautiful girls to be saddled with mistakes so they can go ahead and take Plan B, C, D, X, whatever it takes.
Like I need gran-kids right now. That puppy is not doing well with the house training, and I need a cigarete.
|
|
Hey Rep. Bachmann
Do you think it has anything to do with the lobby efforts of the pharmaceutical industry; an industry that is one of your largest campaign contributors. A industry that you've been supporting your entire congressional career. |
|