By Tatiana von Tauber
And if Obama had two boys?
I’m deeply disappointed by the recent decision to eliminate easier access to the so called morning after pill by girls 17 and under. I fully get where Obama gets his mindset from. I’m a parent of 2 girls, one 13 and very pretty.
Obama’s decision to side with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who overruled scientists at the Food and Drug Administration was a poor one. While he’s coming from a good place, may be a good father and honorable in doing what he thinks most parents would want, he just missed to boat of doing what’s actually in the best interest of young girls rather than what’s in the best interest of a parents’ wish for young girls. As far as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, may you have bad traffic and no easy access parking the entire holiday season! And I mean that.
Nothing, and I mean, nothing is more important to me as a female than ensuring other females have rightful ownership of their reproductive system no matter what their age. Without our womb, society can’t get very far. It’s the most powerful tool women have and thus, the rest is repeat history.
State of the female union
The majority of young girls – exampled as 11 and 12 year olds for the poor reasoning labeled “common sense” which aided the elimination of this pill over the counter, aren’t that young often enough to discredit the good of the pill to older girls. It blatantly discriminates.
While it would statistically occur perhaps, the numbers would be small to have little girls, basically, just head over to the supermarket by the condoms isle and buy a $50 pill. This is so ludicrous that you have to be an idiot to side with it if not for political reasons. AND, if young girls did do that, then bravo for them taking pro-active measure to fix their screw up.
Who to trust when adults don’t give you all the facts?
I have never seen an influx of pro-lifers opting to fund, house or care for the millions of unplanned children of the world. embryos are great in utero. They’re fresh potential to mold. Religion needs followers and governments need taxes. Someone has to produce human beings at all costs.
“The FDA did not have the data to support a decision of this magnitude,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. “The secretary pointed out obvious deficiencies in the research and acted in the interest of young girls.”
Really? Of this magnitude? This pill has been used for decades in Europe and the issue of great magnitude is the subtle and sly attempt to strip females of what has always been rightfully theirs.
How to Fix this?
Here’s a suggestion then which truly does act in the interest of young girls:
How about yearly comprehensive sex education for boys and girls in the pubic school system mandated by federal and secular standards, not state. In GA my daughter met several young girls who actually believed they could get pregnant from kissing! This is sick in a country which claims such global superpower.
What about introducing reasonably easy access to free or reduced priced condoms or birth control to under aged girls instead of empty promises of abstinence whilst a nice hard cock stands to seduce. Perhaps if we reframe the way we view sex and morality the morning after pill can be marketed as an “Oops! Did you miss your birth control pill last night? We understand the heavy responsibilities a vagina and womb bring, so we’re here to help. Plan B. Here for you when Plan A bombs.” However, because it’s also used and known as an abortion pill, everything changes.
If God was so intelligent, why didn’t he make it so menses began at 18? If God can allow pre-teen girls to get a period, the intent is quite frankly, for them to reproduce. The morality stick should be poking God himself, not our young females. It’s sickening that taxpayers fund government salaries and research to pay for morality treatments as we hush science, logic and individual freedom.
The federal government has no constitutional right to enforce sex education, so far as I am aware. It has no right to limit the availability of medications either, according to my understanding of the Constitution (don’t give me that Commerce Clause crap). And right now, Barack Obama will simply do whatever he believes is in his best interests to get re-elected. “Whatever it takes,” according to GWBush Senior’s memorable phrase.
Except that children don’t have rights.
The fact that there even is such a thing as mandatory schooling proves as much.
As for limiting the availability of medication:
Sure they can. It’s called a “controlled substance”.
Sean, do you regard this as good or bad? And do you really think the federal invention of the concept of a “controlled substance” was consistent with the Constitution?
I regard it as bad.
And I don’t think the concept of “controlled substances” are consistent with the constitution, however, it is a right that the feds claim and no one is really denying it.
Some might call this a really minor quibble. ” I’m a parent of 2 girls, one 13 and very pretty.”. So unpretty girls are not at risk? I’m a parent of two girls and they would have insisted on calling you on this one had they been awake