Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision
today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that
morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without
prescriptions throughout the U.S.

Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of
these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several
influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But
there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices
available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who
may not want to be forced into fatherhood.

The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already
include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many
states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child
up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to
them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription.
If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of
the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA)
and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription.

Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR
choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the
answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision
unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+
years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the
financial consequences of her own unilateral decision.

In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this
angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to
know the answer.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision
today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that
morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without
prescriptions throughout the U.S.

Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of
these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several
influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But
there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices
available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who
may not want to be forced into fatherhood.

The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already
include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many
states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child
up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to
them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription.
If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of
the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA)
and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription.

Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR
choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the
answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision
unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+
years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the
financial consequences of her own unilateral decision.

In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this
angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to
know the answer.

I've been thinking about this decision since I heard it announced earlier
today. And I have some questions too.

First, these morning after pills are marketed under the name "Plan B." I
wonder what Plan A is? Perhaps Plan A is to have unprotected sex and worry
about it later. If so, that is a very risky situation for men who may be
tricked into having unprotected sex if the woman insists she will take Plan
B. The man has no guarantee the woman will follow through and actually take
the Plan B pills. In fact, I believe the availability of these pills can
increase a man's vulnerability to being tricked into creating an unplanned
pregnancy and the resultant 18+ years of CS payments. From what I have
read, these pills are less effective than normal birth control and their
effectiveness diminishes as time passes after unprotected sex.

Second, the people who needs these pills the most may not be fully aware of
how to get them. How will they be informed? Will the government launch a
major advertising campaign to alert women to the availability of these
morning after pills? Will the fact these pills get advertised increase the
incidence of unprotected sex? Will women refuse to take them because they
don't want to suffer the pill's side effects like nausea, vomiting, etc. and
opt instead to risk a pregnancy?

Third, the financial impact needs to be addressed. What are the
repercussions of removing these pills from prescription status to over the
counter? If health plans start to cover female contraceptive options will
those plans also cover non-prescription Plan B pills?

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision
today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that
morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without
prescriptions throughout the U.S.

Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of
these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several
influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But
there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices
available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who
may not want to be forced into fatherhood.

The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already
include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many
states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child
up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to
them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription.
If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of
the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA)
and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription.

Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR
choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the
answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision
unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+
years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the
financial consequences of her own unilateral decision.

In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this
angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to
know the answer.

I've been thinking about this decision since I heard it announced earlier
today. And I have some questions too.

First, these morning after pills are marketed under the name "Plan B." I
wonder what Plan A is? Perhaps Plan A is to have unprotected sex and worry
about it later. If so, that is a very risky situation for men who may be
tricked into having unprotected sex if the woman insists she will take Plan
B. The man has no guarantee the woman will follow through and actually take
the Plan B pills. In fact, I believe the availability of these pills can
increase a man's vulnerability to being tricked into creating an unplanned
pregnancy and the resultant 18+ years of CS payments. From what I have
read, these pills are less effective than normal birth control and their
effectiveness diminishes as time passes after unprotected sex.

Second, the people who needs these pills the most may not be fully aware of
how to get them. How will they be informed? Will the government launch a
major advertising campaign to alert women to the availability of these
morning after pills? Will the fact these pills get advertised increase the
incidence of unprotected sex? Will women refuse to take them because they
don't want to suffer the pill's side effects like nausea, vomiting, etc. and
opt instead to risk a pregnancy?

Third, the financial impact needs to be addressed. What are the
repercussions of removing these pills from prescription status to over the
counter? If health plans start to cover female contraceptive options will
those plans also cover non-prescription Plan B pills?

I'm personally waiting for the first legal action against a man who
substitutes the traditional post-coital smoke with a post-coital
(doctored) drink...said action of course being instigated by the woman
who wanted to get pregnant against his wishes... Will the Supremes
stand behind her inalienable right to deceive him into parenthood?

Of course there's the bright side - the neighborhood slut will no longer
find herself stuck with the support the state can squeeze out of Joey
Poorboy down the street just 'cause he happened to be the one who took
her home from the bar...it'll be that much easier for her to hold out
for an "oops" with Bobby Bankmanager and get what her child REALLY
deserves.

Mel Gamble

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision
today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that
morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without
prescriptions throughout the U.S.

Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of
these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several
influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But
there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices
available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who
may not want to be forced into fatherhood.

The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already
include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many
states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child
up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to
them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription.
If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of
the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA)
and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription.

Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR
choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the
answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision
unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+
years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the
financial consequences of her own unilateral decision.

In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this
angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to
know the answer.

I've been thinking about this decision since I heard it announced earlier
today. And I have some questions too.

First, these morning after pills are marketed under the name "Plan B." I
wonder what Plan A is? Perhaps Plan A is to have unprotected sex and worry
about it later. If so, that is a very risky situation for men who may be
tricked into having unprotected sex if the woman insists she will take Plan
B. The man has no guarantee the woman will follow through and actually take
the Plan B pills. In fact, I believe the availability of these pills can
increase a man's vulnerability to being tricked into creating an unplanned
pregnancy and the resultant 18+ years of CS payments. From what I have
read, these pills are less effective than normal birth control and their
effectiveness diminishes as time passes after unprotected sex.

Second, the people who needs these pills the most may not be fully aware of
how to get them. How will they be informed? Will the government launch a
major advertising campaign to alert women to the availability of these
morning after pills? Will the fact these pills get advertised increase the
incidence of unprotected sex? Will women refuse to take them because they
don't want to suffer the pill's side effects like nausea, vomiting, etc. and
opt instead to risk a pregnancy?

Third, the financial impact needs to be addressed. What are the
repercussions of removing these pills from prescription status to over the
counter? If health plans start to cover female contraceptive options will
those plans also cover non-prescription Plan B pills?

I'm personally waiting for the first legal action against a man who
substitutes the traditional post-coital smoke with a post-coital
(doctored) drink...said action of course being instigated by the woman
who wanted to get pregnant against his wishes... Will the Supremes
stand behind her inalienable right to deceive him into parenthood?

Of course there's the bright side - the neighborhood slut will no longer
find herself stuck with the support the state can squeeze out of Joey
Poorboy down the street just 'cause he happened to be the one who took
her home from the bar...it'll be that much easier for her to hold out
for an "oops" with Bobby Bankmanager and get what her child REALLY
deserves.

Mel Gamble

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The newspapers tomorrow (Wednesday) will be reporting the decision
today of a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that
morning-after contraceptive pills should be available to women without
prescriptions throughout the U.S.

Now, of course, although the FDA usually accepts the recommendations of
these advisory panels, it may not do so in this case. Several
influential pro-life groups are strongly opposed to this proposal. But
there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

So . . . consider the steady extension of reproductive choices
available to women. Contrast it with the choices available to men who
may not want to be forced into fatherhood.

The post-conception choices available to women in the U.S. already
include abortion, dropping off newborns at fire stations, etc., in many
states, and (as a practical matter) a unilateral decision to put a child
up for adoption. Now it is likely that women will have available to
them, throughout the U.S., a morning-after pill without prescription.
If this happens, they will be able to go into a drugstore at any hour of
the day or night (as the National Organization for Women told the FDA)
and buy a morning-after pill without a prescription.

Meantime, what are the choices available to men, and how are THEIR
choices being enlarged? Just to ask the question is to know the
answer. Men's choices remain that of accepting the decision
unilaterally made by a woman, and -- quite possibly -- paying her 18+
years of so-called "child support" to make it easier for her to bear the
financial consequences of her own unilateral decision.

In their coverage of this matter, will the media even mention this
angle on the whole situation? Again, just to ask the question is to
know the answer.

I've been thinking about this decision since I heard it announced earlier
today. And I have some questions too.

First, these morning after pills are marketed under the name "Plan B." I
wonder what Plan A is? Perhaps Plan A is to have unprotected sex and worry
about it later. If so, that is a very risky situation for men who may be
tricked into having unprotected sex if the woman insists she will take Plan
B. The man has no guarantee the woman will follow through and actually take
the Plan B pills. In fact, I believe the availability of these pills can
increase a man's vulnerability to being tricked into creating an unplanned
pregnancy and the resultant 18+ years of CS payments. From what I have
read, these pills are less effective than normal birth control and their
effectiveness diminishes as time passes after unprotected sex.

Second, the people who needs these pills the most may not be fully aware of
how to get them. How will they be informed? Will the government launch a
major advertising campaign to alert women to the availability of these
morning after pills? Will the fact these pills get advertised increase the
incidence of unprotected sex? Will women refuse to take them because they
don't want to suffer the pill's side effects like nausea, vomiting, etc. and
opt instead to risk a pregnancy?

Third, the financial impact needs to be addressed. What are the
repercussions of removing these pills from prescription status to over the
counter? If health plans start to cover female contraceptive options will
those plans also cover non-prescription Plan B pills?

"Kenneth S." writes:

But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486.
However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure
for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences.

IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD
should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet
another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the
detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous.

The interested readers can peruse these pages.

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1

N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention
of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own
political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.

"Kenneth S." writes:

But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486.
However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure
for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences.

IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD
should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet
another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the
detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous.

The interested readers can peruse these pages.

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1

N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention
of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own
political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.

In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is
-- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the
birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product.

However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving
reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of
giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very
simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made
unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal
rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very
largely because there is no special interest group representing
heterosexual men.

For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money
to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the
post-conception choices U.S. law has given them.


Kathi Kelly wrote:

"Kenneth S." writes:

But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486.
However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure
for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences.

IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD
should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet
another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the
detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous.

The interested readers can peruse these pages.

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1

N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention
of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own
political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.

In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is
-- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the
birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product.

However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving
reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of
giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very
simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made
unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal
rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very
largely because there is no special interest group representing
heterosexual men.

For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money
to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the
post-conception choices U.S. law has given them.


Kathi Kelly wrote:

"Kenneth S." writes:

But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486.
However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure
for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences.

IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD
should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet
another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the
detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous.

The interested readers can peruse these pages.

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1

N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention
of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own
political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.

A young woman in my town died a few months ago of complications from
RU486. And she was under a doctor's caer.


(Kathi Kelly) wrote in message ...
"Kenneth S." writes:

But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal.
A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries)
ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an
over-the-counter basis.

Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486.
However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure
for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences.

IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD
should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet
another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the
detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous.

The interested readers can peruse these pages.

http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm

http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1

N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention
of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own
political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.