If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   In the latest salvo fired in the Republican War on Women, Governor Bobby Jindal suggests that birth control should be over the counter. Wait, what?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, Bobby Jindal, human beings, Equal Pay Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, obstetricians, Priebus tried, shiny objects, Priebus  
•       •       •

1538 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 1:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-14 11:46:53 AM
6 votes:
I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.
2012-12-14 12:10:47 PM
3 votes:

what_now: There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC alcohol


And therefore we need the state involved in our lives at every turn. It's for our own good.
2012-12-14 12:02:43 PM
3 votes:
Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?
2012-12-14 11:58:34 AM
2 votes:

what_now: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

They're making the best of a bad situation. Women without health insurance should still have across to birth control, they say, and under the current situation, they are correct.

Lets solve the underlying problem of women who don't have access to health care.

I gave an uninsured friend some of my left over birth control pills and a few months later she walked into an emergeny room worried she was going to kill herself.

Now, she was in law school at the time...


Wait... you think a doctor should monitor birth control intake and you distributed some of your own prescription medication to another person?
2012-12-14 11:52:48 AM
2 votes:

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


Well, I kind of thought the same thing, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks its safe enough to give OTC. Which kind of sways me to think it's probably okay. It would be behind the counter, and pharmacists would be there to answer questions and help them with the choices (ideally). 

But yes, I think it should be drop dead free no matter what kind of healthcare system we have.
2012-12-15 06:25:15 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: I mean it seems like a good idea but I'm worried about the unintended consequences.


We have unintended consequences now: millions of women who could use birth control perfectly safely, but don't because of the time/money hassle. This, of course, can be solved by injecting (more) politics into a business transaction that shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
2012-12-14 02:40:22 PM
1 votes:

urbangirl: Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.


Gosh, if it's that dangerous what have we been doing it handing it out so freely these past 60 years?
2012-12-14 02:37:50 PM
1 votes:

un4gvn666: Honestly, I don't know why I bothered. lennavan is just doing the same selective reading routine he pulled in the "Marco Rubio refuses to stand up to social conservatives on the age of the Earth" thread. It's why I have him farkied as "Rubio at least deserves an A for effort!"


You do realize the linked article references how the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees with me, right?

Are they also doing selective reading and you totally know better what with your MD/PhD and all?
2012-12-14 02:35:38 PM
1 votes:

urbangirl: Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.


There are lots of ways to mess up a fetus if you are already pregnant. Should alcohol be prescription only, so long as you pass a pregnancy test?

urbangirl: This is not like an allergic rash from a condom that will go away in a few days. This is life-threatening stuff.


No, it's really not. High cholesterol will be found in your general checkup. You can survive until then. So will low blood pressure. If blood pressure gets too low, you'll be dizzy. If you're dizzy for a few days, you'll probably head to the doctor's office. It worsens depression in already depressed people. Those people are already seeing psychiatrists and if they're not, the OBGYN isn't the right place to force them to start.

The sum of all of your life-threatening things and we still have a lower mortality rate for women on BC. It's not so scary.
2012-12-14 02:35:31 PM
1 votes:

BSABSVR: There are very good reasons to keep some medications prescription only, even if you want recreational drugs to be legal (as I do). We are already seeing issues with bacterial infections developing resistance to antibiotics, creating MRSA, residtant strains of Gonorrhea, etc.

During the 2001-2002 Anthrax scares, every idiot under the sun decided they needed Cipro, just in case Truth or Consequences, NM was going to be terrorized. I don't particularly care if some dude develops a tolerance for meth or adderall as it doesn't really do me any harm. That dude running around spewing a super bug because he takes Zeftera every time he gets the sniffles, or thinks that Cipro will clear up his athlete's foot can cause me harm.


Birth control may have side effects, but it won't become useless if overprescribed. It's not like sperm can adapt to the Pill and become supersperm.
2012-12-14 02:29:33 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?


Raise cholesterol, lower blood pressure to dangerous levels, blood clots, gallstones, clinical depression. Can cause serious problems if you're prone to cardio-vascular disease. Probably more that I don't know about. Not to mention if you happen to already be pregnant, you can really mess up the fetus.

This is not like an allergic rash from a condom that will go away in a few days. This is life-threatening stuff.
2012-12-14 02:27:50 PM
1 votes:

un4gvn666: lennavan: urbangirl: You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC

What are the potential long-term serious consequences of BC?

There's a link provided in this very thread.


The long-term serious consequence of BC is it reduces cancer? I assumed by potential long-term serious consequence she meant a negative consequence.

The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.[43] Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.[20]

Oh, right there the negative side effect is, blood clots.

The risk of thromboembolism varies with different types of birth control pills. For the second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50 μg), the risk of thromboembolism is relatively small, with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 per year among non-pregnant women

Well less risk of cancer, higher risk of blood clot, let's weigh the pros and cons, shall we?

Overall, use of oral contraceptives appears to slightly reduce all-cause mortality, with a rate ratio for overall mortality of 0.87 (confidence interval: 0.79-0.96) when comparing ever-users of OCs with never-users.[65]

You're right, women might start using BC and lowering their mortality rate. Truly scary.
2012-12-14 02:11:24 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: As a guy. you can buy condoms over the counter, you can buy them in bathrooms, you can get them free from lots of places.

But when it's women contraception it's OMG!!! We have to make sure people can't just buy them and we have to make sure religious groups aren't offended.

It's double standard BS.


You can buy condoms OTC precisely because they don't have anywhere near the potential long-term serious consequences of OBC. I can't believe you don't see this. As someone said earlier, the solution is to make OBC cheap/free and easy to get, not make it OTC. Guess who already does that? Planned Parenthood. Every day.
2012-12-14 02:01:46 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Now we get into the fun part; would the doctor's visit for what is now an optional medication be covered under insurance? I doubt it.


Of course it would. Pap-smears and general check-ups wouldn't suddenly become unnecessary. During your general check-up, you can ask about a whole slew of things including OTC medicines and insurance will still cover it.

I'm honestly surprised to see the ACOG support BC being OTC. I always viewed it as they hold BC over your head because otherwise you wouldn't go in for annual exams. We'd probably have a much healthier population if we required regular check-ups before letting you have painkillers like aspirin/ibuprofen too.
2012-12-14 01:47:53 PM
1 votes:
Just for some context - you can buy BC over the counter in Dubai, a country with a legal system based on Sharia law. It's also about a quarter the price as in the US, which should give you an idea how much we're being scammed by Big Pharma.
2012-12-14 01:47:34 PM
1 votes:

what_now: Nabb1: what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link

They're making the best of a bad situation. Women without health insurance should still have across to birth control, they say, and under the current situation, they are correct.

Lets solve the underlying problem of women who don't have access to health care.

I gave an uninsured friend some of my left over birth control pills and a few months later she walked into an emergeny room worried she was going to kill herself.

Now, she was in law school at the time...


Step 1: Restrict access to a drug.
Step 2: People get it through illegal means
Step 3: Some people experience side effects.

Your conclusion is that restriction protects people?
2012-12-14 01:47:13 PM
1 votes:

SuperTramp: Hey Nabb1, could you hand the microphone to your uterus for a minute?


That's a stupid argument. I'm not planning to have kids, does that make my opinions about education moot? I'm not gay, so my feelings on marriage equality are null & void? I'm not rich, so my views on the top 3 brackets don't matter (actually, there are many people that believe this)? I live in America, so my feelings about her foreign policy don't matter?

// it comes into play when you tell a SPECIFIC person what to do with her uterus
// but I'll let you see for yourself how that applies to men and women
2012-12-14 01:46:52 PM
1 votes:

Ambivalence: Very true. Hormones are not to be farked with. There are also more chances of misuse if it's OTC.


All of the other OTC drugs have zero chance of misuse or what?
2012-12-14 01:45:47 PM
1 votes:

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


There are serious side effects from a lot of OTC drugs. No one would prevent women from having a doctor monitor her use to find the correct dosage. The real question is can a regular person be tasked to make an appropriate and safe decision for themselves. For every single side effect of birth control, a woman can easily make the appropriate decision with no risk. The vast majority are fine "headache, whoopdy doo." Other times that appropriate decision will be to go see a doctor:

Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
Chest pain
Headaches (severe)
Eye problems (blurred vision)
Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

Imagine two women, one bought BC OTC the other was required to get a prescription. Both get abdominal pain. They're in the exact same boat. Whether they got a prescription to start or not, they both will make the choice to see a doctor or not. The prescription didn't help either of them.
2012-12-14 01:44:18 PM
1 votes:

Elandriel: Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.


Buying birth control OTC in no way precludes a woman from consulting a doctor, it just removes that from being a requirement. If a woman is having no issues with an OTC med and wants to handle it herself, what's the problem?

I wonder how many people who want to "legalize drugs" (as I do) here on Fark are on the side of keeping some meds prescription-only. If you're prepared to let people alter their consciousness and potentially destroy their health and lives with one substance, you may as well extend the privilege to all of them.
2012-12-14 01:38:29 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Question: does making birth control available without a prescription remove the need for health insurance to get involved?

I ask for two reasons. One, it would probably end the messy debate over health insurance from groups with religious affiliations. Two, it could open up a new can of worms as costs are no longer offset by health insurance.

What I'm driving at here is, if birth control is OTC, what's to stop an anti-BC pharmacy owner from charging $100 per dose that can't be billed to your insurance?


Most insurance does not cover OTC medication. If it's OTC, then it will come in a slick packaged box somewhere on the aisle near the Advil or whatever else and not be locked up in the pharmacy (unless tweakers figure out how to cook BC into meth). There are some birth control pills that cost as little as $8-10 per month, which is less than a box of condoms.
2012-12-14 01:35:11 PM
1 votes:
If women could buy birth control without a prescription, he argues, employers would not have to pay for it against their moral objections, and Democrats could no longer accuse Republicans of being anti-birth control.

Yeah, that's the ticket. We should make drugs over the counter if it's politically beneficial to do so. What a great reason you have there, Bobby.

I agree they should be OTC but not because of politics. Because doctors say its safe, that's the only relevant thing to ask.
2012-12-14 01:34:31 PM
1 votes:

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).


That's like saying aspirin doesn't alleviate all pain so let's make it prescription-only. If you're still having problems while taking OTC meds, then by all means go see a doctor. Part of being an adult is taking charge of your own life decisions and not relying on others to do it for you.
2012-12-14 01:33:53 PM
1 votes:

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


Came here to say something like this. If it's OTC, then insurance won't cover any of it, making it more expensive to low-income women. If it's a prescription then they get a break.
2012-12-14 01:32:01 PM
1 votes:
My wife was on 4 different kinds of oral contraceptives, one after the other for 3 month courses each, before she gave up and went off the pill -- the hormonal imbalances were impossible for her to deal with and we almost ended up divorced because there was no balance at all and we were fighting over everything. I did my best to be supportive but she was absolutely manic all the time over everything, no matter how inconsequential, and I was the scapegoat. Please hold your "lol women" comments because she was not herself in any sense.

Making an untrained woman personally in charge of ingesting medicine that has enormous hormonal change is hilariously irresponsible. People are still so damn hung up on this being about not getting pregnant, instead of the host of other effects BC pills have on a woman from cyst prevention to cycle regulation. Making it OTC divorces the process of consultation and medical expertise from it, and endangers women everywhere.

Also it is another huge payout to insurance industries who were only just recently mandated to cover BC. So.
2012-12-14 01:24:19 PM
1 votes:

Nabb1: Restricting women's access to birth control for policy reasons rather than medical reasons is, in effect, government interference with their reproductive rights. You are pro-choice, right?


There are medical reasons to restrict it. ACOG recommends making it OTC because of public health reasons that would outweigh the medical reasons to restrict. If the public health reasons to allow free access were fulfilled by a single payer system, then the medical reasons would stand unopposed, and it should not be OTC.
2012-12-14 01:17:50 PM
1 votes:

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Alright, you're a troll on this matter. Have fun, I'm gonna go do work.


You didn't answer the question, which I think is legitimate. Making birth control OTC and supporting Planned Parenthood/Obamacare are not mutually exclusive. Denying women the option of OTC birth control when doctors are okay with it and demanding they have to go through Planned Parenthood/Obamacare is nothing more than a political agenda.
2012-12-14 12:52:16 PM
1 votes:

hillbillypharmacist: Well, I kind of thought the same thing, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists thinks its safe enough to give OTC. Which kind of sways me to think it's probably okay. It would be behind the counter, and pharmacists would be there to answer questions and help them with the choices (ideally) refuse to give it to them for moral reasons.

2012-12-14 12:44:30 PM
1 votes:

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Has nothing to do with greed, it has to do with many folks who go in to get HBC rarely have them and *should*, so having one at that point of patient content is coincidentally advantageous to the person inquiring about HBC.


Now put yourself in the shoes of a woman in the one group where abortions have not been trending down in recent years: women in their 20's and 30's who already have at least one kid. Single moms in particular.

They've got enough on their plate without having to take a day off to sit in a doctor's office to get a ten-minute once-over and the almighty prescription.

Usage would go up tremendously if all the woman had to do was head down to a kiosk at the CVS and answer some simple questions.
2012-12-14 12:36:22 PM
1 votes:

sweetmelissa31: First of all, every woman should be able to see a gynecologist every year. I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist. However, the pill is not like a condom. I had a bad experience with it, and I'm glad I have insurance so I could see a gynecologist about it.


Guys have latex allergies and spermicide allergies. They can have bad experiences with condoms too. Maybe they buy them a size too big because they got to the gym in 26 minutes that day and they felt like celebrating.

Therefore condoms should be prescription only because guys are too dumb and arrogant to figure out which kind is right for them and they need to see a handsomely-compensated expert or two.
2012-12-14 12:30:51 PM
1 votes:
I'm torn on the prescription birth control issue because not every woman can afford to see a gynecologist.

Exactly. While having OTC birth control might be the best solution right now, what we really need is single payer health care.
2012-12-14 12:30:46 PM
1 votes:

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Ground-level RCC is often very, very different than what the Vatican would like.


That's the understatement of the week.
2012-12-14 12:15:23 PM
1 votes:

sweetmelissa31: Is this a ploy to get people to pay more out of pocket for birth control?


The current state of affairs is a ploy to force women to pay for unnecessary doctor's visits.

Some of the really greedy doctors will add a pelvic exam to the bill regardless of its necessity, even though it's irrelevant to the issue of birth control.

Imagine if a male farker had to get a prostate exam and erectile function test in order to get a prescription for condoms.

Holding women's health hostage to intrusive medical procedures is okay long as it's not Republicans doing it, right?
2012-12-14 12:05:36 PM
1 votes:

Nabb1: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Nabb1: The objections to this seem more political than scientific, to me, anyway.

Having seen the tribulations of what my various female friends have gone through to find the correct HBC, I'm firmly in the camp of having it be RX only (through PP or some gyn or whatever).

As other said, it should be a no-copay covered medication and we should have single payer anyway, but yeah, I really think that its a complex enough issue with enough patient education and variance needed that a Doc should be involved.

I'm sorry, is there anything that would prohibit a woman from speaking to her doctor about all this without the necessity of needing a prescription for the actual medication?


No, but once something goes OTC people seem to think it's perfectly safe and has no side effects whatsoever. Realistically, who is going to pay for a doctor's appointment to talk about something that doesn't need a script?
2012-12-14 11:49:41 AM
1 votes:

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees. Link
2012-12-14 11:48:31 AM
1 votes:
Considering that HBC can have some pretty accute side effects, I'm pretty sure that would be a bad idea.

It also seems like these folks still think there's only one kind of oral contraceptive.

I followed the link to the "study" (which is really just the result of a bunch of people talking and then finding some sources, it looks like) and damn them's some rosy colored glasses.
2012-12-14 11:48:30 AM
1 votes:

what_now: I actually disagree. Hormonal birth control should be monitored by a doctor. There can serious emotional and physical side effects from using BC, and a woman should be able to have a doctor prescribe and monitor her use, until they find the correct dosage.

Now, we should have single payer healthcare and BC should be free, but someone needs to prescribe it.


what she said
2012-12-14 11:46:26 AM
1 votes:
I think it's a good idea. Also, most health insurance doesn't cover OTC medication, so that would solve that issue, too.
2012-12-14 11:39:39 AM
1 votes:
It's an interesting idea, and I certainly like it better than some busybody religious folks sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and determining how employees may use their benefits.

Of course, the right thing to do would be for the busybody religious folks sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and determining how employees may use their benefits to back the f*ck off. But that's not likely to happen.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report