Ordinarially, I wouldn’t post an article sent to me via email, but this one in particular caught my attention. I was going to try to recreate the message in the article in my own words, but I’m not sure I would do it justice. Well, read the article and I’ll add my Jerry Springer-esque “Final Thoughts” at the end. And one more note, in my articles I take great care to ensure that all statistics and other data are accurate. Since I am not the author of this article and I did not do the research for it, I can not verify that it is 100% accurate. If you have evidence to the contrary, please forward it to me and I’ll make every effort to update the article with correct information. Enjoy!’Morning After’ Hangover?
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 8/25/2006

Regulation: The FDA’s approval of the “Plan B” contraceptive may become a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. And why are such pills treated differently from other medications?

With the curious acquiescence of the Bush administration, which recently vetoed the attempt to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on the grounds it felt life begins at conception, the FDA has approved the “morning after” pill, designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself in a womb, for over-the-counter sale to anyone over 18.

We don’t suppose it occurred to the FDA, which has no enforcement powers, that an 18-year-old might buy the pills, also known as Plan B, and pass them on to younger girls? Any adult male over 18 could walk into a pharmacy, buy the drug, coax a girl into having sex and then taking the pill, telling her that everything will be OK.

It is ironic that while we don’t want teens to smoke cigarettes, we give them unrestricted over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, which unknown health effects aside may encourage them to have more sex, and more unprotected sex, even as the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is rising. In the U.S., sexually active teenagers already face what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls an “epidemic of STDs.”

In Great Britain, the morning-after pill is already available without a prescription. And in an effort to lower the teen birthrate, Britain has gone so far as to use public funds to enable women under 20 to walk into local pharmacies and pick up free doses.

Meanwhile, the London Times reports an epidemic of STDs among British teens, with skyrocketing diagnoses among the group over a five-year period.

The morning-after pill provides no protection from any of the 25 known STDs, including HIV, human papilloma virus, chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea, genital warts, syphilis and hepatitis B.

All prescription drugs have what is known as a “safe dose.” But if the morning-after pill is available over the counter, there’s no limit on how often or how many may be used. In the U.S., women who take birth control pills are required to see a physician. So, why would the morning-after pill, which is many times stronger than regular birth control, be sold on the shelf next to Tylenol?

Silence greeted the announcement by the FDA in March that two more women died after taking another birth control pill, mifepristone, also known as RU-486, bringing to seven the number of women known to have died after taking this drug.

Had it been Vioxx or any other drug made by those evil, profit-making drug companies, the outcry would have been deafening.

In December the FDA announced that 607 of what it called “adverse events” from women who took mifepristone had been reported from September 2000 to September 2004. A total of 237 cases of hemorrhage were reported, with one resulting in death, 68 requiring transfusions and 42 characterized as life-threatening.

One of those “adverse events” was the death in 2003 of 18-year-old Holly Marie Patterson, who lived in the San Francisco suburb of Livermore. After discovering she was pregnant, Holly went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to take the pill and, after following the prescribed procedure for using RU-486, died when fragments of the fetus left inside caused septic shock.

Despite demonstrable benefits to many, medicines such as Vioxx are routinely pulled off pharmacy shelves and their makers subjected to colossal lawsuits if patients suffer adverse side effects through misuse or inherent risks to a particular user.

Shouldn’t public policy in this area also mirror the Hippocratic oath First, do no harm.

It’s not bad enough that children, not even old enough to drive a car, are having sex in astonishing numbers. Now parents have to also worry about how they plan on “dealing” with having unprotected sex. Does society place a higher value on a woman’s “right” to use these “morning after” pills or on the woman’s life itself? The track record of these drugs are more than enough to cause concern about their safety, but not enough for anyone to do anything about it. How many more young women need to die or face the near death consequences of taking these drugs before they are pulled off of the market? If your answer is anything more than zero, you should seriously sit back and reconsider your priorities in regards to this issue.

• "I now Pronounce you Husband and Husband" Since Massachusetts began allowing gay "marriages", much debate has been...
• It Would Never Happen to Me... Our daily lives are full of comfortable situations.  We wake...

• Two Important Uses of Life Insurance in Estate Planning From ezinsurance.com.au: Life insurance plays a vital role in estate...
• Can a Exercise Bike Cut 16 Years off Your Age? Is cycling or using an exercise bike that good for...

A few days ago, John Kerry announced his stance on Abortion, and in my opinion the reason why no one (Democrat or Republican) should vote for him come November. He stated that
“I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception…I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.”Basically, he just made an attempt to appeal to pro-life, Catholic voters by making it seem like he too was pro-life because of his Catholic faith. Obviously, this is another “Kerry Flip Flop”, since he was saying one thing about his beliefs on abortion, and in the same breath said the exact opposite.

The problem with this is that many people are not going to take the time to think about what was said, as is evident by the lack of sufficient media coverage.

Based on what Kerry said, he believes that 1) life begins at conception and 2) he will (and has in the past) vote for a woman’s “right to choose”. So what does this tell us?

It tells us that Kerry’s personal belief is that a person’s life does not start on the day of their birth, but rather it starts at conception (with which I and many other conservatives feel the same way). It also tells us Kerry feels that between the time of conception and birth, a woman should have the right to choose to kill that child, which he stated is living. So let me ask, to John Kerry, what is the difference between a mother having an abortion, and a mother who drowns their 6 month old baby in the bath tub? Regardless of what the motive was in either case, according to John Kerry’s beliefs, both should be considered murder.

But he is still willing to allow abortions! That right there, no matter how conservative or how liberal you are should be enough of a reason not to vote for Kerry. This man, according to his statements sees no difference between an abortion, and someone crushing in another person’s skull with a rock (assuming it’s done in private). In his mind it is OK for a mother to kill their unborn child, a living human.

I can somewhat understand the “pro-choice” people, who don’t feel that life begins at conception. At least when they make the argument for abortion, they aren’t saying that they are willing to kill a living human. But Kerry did. In his mind and conscience he has no problem with allowing the mass murder of humans in this country if he gets elected.

And if what he said is just a ploy to get more votes, then another question arises about his ethics. If he is willing to deceive the American people during an election campaign, what makes us think that he won’t do so during his Presidency? After all isn’t he supposed to be showing his best side during this campaign?

• Where do They Stand on the Issues? Many of you out there may be confused about where...
• John Kerry Supports Mandatory Service in the Military The best thing about the internet is it allows the...

• Fat, Sad, and Fake I recall reading about some study done that said that...
• Curious Suicide Coroner and Law I'm often struck when reading the papers...