Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday March 20, @05:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-makin'-babies dept.

A review has reiterated that oral contraception is safe and effective for adolescent females, and found that negative side effects are rarer among teens than adult users. The review also found no evidence linking the use of oral contraceptives to increased or riskier sex:

Nearly five years ago, the nation's leading group of obstetricians and gynecologists issued a policy statement saying the time had come for oral contraception to be available without a prescription. We wrote about it and everything.

In the intervening years, some states have changed their laws. California authorized pharmacists to distribute most types of hormonal birth control. Oregon passed a similar law covering both pills and patches. But neither law changed the status of birth control pills from prescription to over-the-counter. Only the Food and Drug Administration can do that. And in Oregon's case, the law does not apply to people of all ages. People under 18 are still required to get their first contraceptive prescription from a doctor.

But researchers say there is no evidence that adolescents are at greater risk from birth control pills than adult women. A review of oral contraceptive research [DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.12.024] [DX] presents the most comprehensive evidence yet that, as the authors state, "There is no scientific rationale for limiting access to a future over-the-counter oral contraceptive product by age."

"There is a growing body of evidence that the safety risks are low and benefits are large," says Krishna Upadhya, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the lead author of the review, which was published this week in the Journal of Adolescent Health. In fact, she says, some of the potential negative side effects of oral contraception are less likely in younger people. For example, birth control pills that contain both estrogen and progestin come with an increased risk of a type of blood clot called a venous thromboembolism, but that risk is lower in teenagers than in older women. As a result, the pill is "potentially safer the younger you are," says Upadhya.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 20, @05:49PM (4 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 20, @05:49PM (#481627)

    And there I thought that blowing that 18th candle changed women's bodies completely...
    That's what my parole officers tell me.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday March 20, @07:02PM (2 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday March 20, @07:02PM (#481682)

      Apparently there isn't a universal age of consent across the U.S. Everybody just uses 18 as the rule of thumb because that will cover everything without having to look it up.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by compro01 on Monday March 20, @07:44PM (1 child)

        by compro01 (2515) on Monday March 20, @07:44PM (#481713)

        Everybody just uses 18 as the rule of thumb because that will cover everything without having to look it up.

        I'd say that's more likely because it's 18 in California (despite the "left coast" reputation, it's actually the highest and among the most restrictive AoC law in the USA), and most of the TV shows and movies are made there, so the idea spreads that that is the case everywhere.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @09:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @09:34PM (#481795)

      The question about safety actually goes the other direction. It's not that its surprising that it's safer for the teenagers, its actually known to be safer for teenagers than for the general population mainly because teenagers tend to have fewer cardiovascular risk factors (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.) than the general female population. The point is not that some dumb doc thought that 18 was magic, the point is that its actually safer for younger women. I assume there'd be an issue if you got young enough to interfere w puberty, but that's kind of a long shot.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @05:54PM (32 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @05:54PM (#481631)

    If you think that birth control pills would be beneficial to YOU, then YOU pay for it. Get it, yet?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Monday March 20, @05:58PM (14 children)

      by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 20, @05:58PM (#481636)

      Purchases made without a prescription would almost certainly not be covered by any insurance anyway. Over-the-counter availability is likely to mean fewer people paying for others' birth control, not more.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @05:59PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @05:59PM (#481638)

        Get it, yet?

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday March 20, @06:05PM (10 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 20, @06:05PM (#481644)

          And if you're overweight, you pay for your bypass.
          And if you're a smoker, you pay for all your diseases.
          And if you like sports, you pay for your injuries.
          And if you're an angry selfish idiot who doesn't understand civilization and insurance markets, you pay for your ticket to the jungle, desert island or warzone of your choice.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:12PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:12PM (#481648)

            That's the whole point of insurance: Risk management.

            I'm not your SLAVE.

            If you keep trying to get someone to suck your dick against his will, don't be surprised when he lashes out.

            Get it, yet?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:45PM (#481671)

              Get it, yet?

              We do. You obviously don't.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:43PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:43PM (#481669)

            That's the whole point of insurance: Risk management.

            I'm not your slave.

            Insurance pays for that catastrophe which happens to an individual despite the individual doing everything possible to prevent that catastrophe.

            It is NOT meant for everyday payments that a semi-sentient being should handle for himself; insurance is NOT a payment network.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Monday March 20, @06:54PM (1 child)

              by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 20, @06:54PM (#481679)

              Insurance companies like the Pill: a second-layer insurance against having to pay a lot of OB bills.

              Pregnancy is insured, and extremely costly. Preventing that risk at minimal cost is the insurance's job. Paying for the pill is essentially a savings for them.

              What's the link to slavery, especially as it actually can reduce your premiums (actually does raise their profits instead).

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:00PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:00PM (#481681)

                Maybe there could be an insurance policy for people who agree never to have children.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:48PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:48PM (#481828)

              > catastrophe

              Ah, your hang up is with the word "insurance."
              If we stop calling it health insurance and start calling it health care all your arguments go away.
              Well, no they won't because inside your head you keep thinking "insurance" but if you weren't hung up on it, they would.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @11:59PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @11:59PM (#481865)

                The problem is that the insurance industry has been abused by government into becoming a payment network for the health care INDUSTRY; it's not possible to have a market when the market is systematically hidden in order to benefit special interests.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 20, @07:10PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @07:10PM (#481689) Journal

            And if you're overweight, you pay for your bypass.
            And if you're a smoker, you pay for all your diseases.
            And if you like sports, you pay for your injuries.
            And if you're an angry selfish idiot who doesn't understand civilization and insurance markets, you pay for your ticket to the jungle, desert island or warzone of your choice.

            Sounds good to me. Another problem solved by the hive mind of the internet.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 20, @08:43PM (1 child)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @08:43PM (#481758) Journal

            And if you're overweight, you pay for your bypass.
            And if you're a smoker, you pay for all your diseases.
            And if you like sports, you pay for your injuries.

            I'm assuming sarcasm here, but the funny thing about such arguments is that they don't agree with actual costs when longevity is taken into account. Yes, it costs more per year to insure a smoker or obese person or whatever, because their medical costs per year are higher while they are alive.

            But they also die earlier. And old people are EXPENSIVE, even if they are relatively "healthy." Which costs society more -- (1) an overweight smoker who has a heart attack in his 50s, spends a year or two struggling after they also find lung cancer, and then dies, or (2) a healthy person who runs so much he needs knee replacements by his late 60s (including many months of therapy and recovery), deals with a bout of random cancer in his 70s, breaks a hip or two in his 80s (again, therapy and recovery), then spends the rest of his 80s in assisted living, and then needs round-the-clock care for his final years in his 90s as he degrades into a drooling mass of dementia (all these years also taking money out of stuff like Social Security, which the fat smoker never had any of)?

            Actuaries have done these calculations. It's actually somewhat cheaper OVER A LIFESPAN in medical costs for a smoker or for an obese person, because they die earlier and don't need decades of increasing "elder care." Factoring in additional social costs like social security, etc., and it's clear healthy people end up costing society a LOT more.

            None of this is an argument to be unhealthy or whatever. But it is something that people should be aware of before they start arguing for everyone else to "pay their fair share." It may turn out that you actually owe THEM money when amortized over a lifespan.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 20, @09:01PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 20, @09:01PM (#481772)

              Does the math still work since evermore=-expensive doctors are getting better at saving the unhealthy?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:09PM (#481645)

          I...guess I don't?

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:29PM (#481748)

          I'm fairly certain I comprehend the point you're trying to make. The problem here is that (wo)men are not angels. In this case, there's another thing compounding the problem. Men are not devils, either.

          Now, I can be a cruel, heartless bitch. I'm perfectly ok with letting a woman and children she may have because she did not abstain or use birth control starve to death in the street. Unfortunately, I'm also beholden to a warlord called the USA, for the sole purpose that my warlord keeps other warlords off my lawn. It just so happens that, because men are not devils, I'm pretty much alone in my willingness to allow such a thing to happen. In one form or another, my warlord will take money from me to pay for this woman and her children so they do not starve in the street.

          So, I'm left with a dilemma. Either I can pay for birth control on the hope that women will use it in lieu of having unplanned pregnancies, or I can pay my warlord to feed, house, and clothe women and their children from unplanned pregnancies. One of these options is quite a bit cheaper: let women have access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

          Because men are not angels, they will have children they cannot afford. If men were angels, they would either ensure that children will not result from sex they choose to have or abstain all together, but they are not angels. Because other men are not devils, we will all pay for either contraception or care of those children they cannot afford themselves.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by charon on Monday March 20, @06:01PM

      by charon (5660) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @06:01PM (#481640)
      OK, if the ED pill whose name I cannot write because of the spam filter gets the same treatment. And comes only by prescription after a prostate exam.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 20, @06:33PM (3 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @06:33PM (#481660) Journal

      If you think that birth control pills would be beneficial to YOU, then YOU pay for it. Get it, yet?

      You pay for my health insurance? Great news! I'll let HR know to stop withholding for that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:39PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:39PM (#481666)

        Insurance pays for that catastrophe which happens to an individual despite the individual doing everything possible to prevent that catastrophe.

        It is NOT meant for everyday payments that a semi-sentient being should handle for himself; insurance is NOT a payment network.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 20, @06:54PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @06:54PM (#481678) Journal

          Insurance pays for that catastrophe which happens to an individual despite the individual doing everything possible to prevent that catastrophe.

          The obesity rate in the US disproves that hypothesis.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:26PM (#481695)

            It's been destroyed through decades of government meddling, which has transformed the "insurance" industry into a generalized payment network for health care, one which tends to transfer wealth to special interests.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:07PM (#481687)

      "Get it yet" guy. I don't want memes on here, but can someone post one elsewhere and see if it gets traction? I'm no good at it or I'd do it myself.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:20PM (#481691)

      Don't let logic, reason, or evidence inform your thinking. It would be bad. *cough sarcasm*

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday March 20, @08:23PM (4 children)

      by DannyB (5839) on Monday March 20, @08:23PM (#481742)

      > If you think that birth control pills would be beneficial to YOU, then YOU pay for it. Get it, yet?

      If you think that poor people should not have access to inexpensive birth control pills, then YOU pay for the unwanted pregnancies. Get it, yet?

      Why should the rest of us have to pay when it is so inexpensive to prevent.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:45PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:45PM (#481760)

        Do you get it, yet?

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:25PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:25PM (#481821)

          It isn't DannyB that thinks it is beneficial, it is the historical data we have on the topic. We should ignore the data which indicates how to improve society just because you can't comprehend that you live in (and vastly benefit from) a society that takes care of it's members?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:05AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:05AM (#481869)

            I'm not your slave.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @10:33AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @10:33AM (#482034)

              If you have a job or otherwise pay any taxes at all, then, yes, you are. Sorry about that.

    • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday March 20, @09:55PM (1 child)

      by epitaxial (3165) on Monday March 20, @09:55PM (#481807)

      Those pills are cheaper than the welfare/section 8/WIC/CHIP you're already paying on young single mothers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:07AM (#481874)

        Got it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:15PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:15PM (#481817)

      If you need any medical procedure you'd better pay for it yourself in full. I don't want my insurance premiums to be higher just cause you can't keep yourself healthy.

      /sarcasm

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:09AM (#481876)

        Try again.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @10:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @10:28AM (#482031)

      I'd have gladly paid for your parents birth control on condition they used it all the time and not produce more stupid people like you.

      Look at all the dumb voters out there. The more voters there are the less my vote is worth. It's not so bad if the voters mostly voted for decent stuff/candidates but that's not happening is it?

      So yeah free access to birth control and education/brainwashing[1] about using it is beneficial to me.

      [1] If you are susceptible to brainwashing, it's good if you get brainwashed into using birth control and not pop out dozens of babies.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by charon on Monday March 20, @05:56PM (29 children)

    by charon (5660) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @05:56PM (#481633)
    I have a 14 year old daughter. As far as I can tell she's not interested in boys much, but, like probably all fathers, I am dreading the day she is. Even so, I'd much rather she be open with me and tell me she needs birth control than sneak around having sex without it. Seems like there's no reason that young women should be forced to jump through even more hoops to get safe medical treatment.
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:02PM (#481641)

      YOU are the fucking parent, you FAGGOT.

      YOU buy her birth control, and YOU start the conversation about sex yourself.

      Goddamnit. "I dread the day she likes boys." FUCK YOU. You don't deserve to be a parent.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Monday March 20, @06:03PM (17 children)

      by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 20, @06:03PM (#481642)

      There's a third option in there which over-the-counter availability would open up: her sneaking around having sex with it. Which is still better than the likely alternative, especially considering the finding of "no evidence linking the use of oral contraceptives to increased or riskier sex". And to be honest, do you really expect your teenage daughter to be open with you about that sort of thing? I know all parents dream of that kind of trust, but how realistic is that really? Even if it wasn't an issue of trust, there will always be the issue of awkwardness.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:18PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:18PM (#481650)

        Hilariously, proponents of systemic hormones seem to have some mental blockage, preventing them from recognizing the existence of an ancient technology called the condom.

        Not only does it work well by itself, but when combined with the pull-out method, or non-penitrative sex, it is extremely effective in preventing all manner of sexually transmitted diseases, including the spread of humanity.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by charon on Monday March 20, @06:22PM (1 child)

          by charon (5660) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @06:22PM (#481653)
          Condoms are great. When they are there. And used. And not broken. And not taken off by a boy who whines about how they feel.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:26PM (#481656)

            ... maybe then they won't "whine" about even less sensation from their disrupted sexual organs.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by compro01 on Monday March 20, @07:52PM (3 children)

          by compro01 (2515) on Monday March 20, @07:52PM (#481720)

          Condom...Not only does it work well by itself

          Depends on one's definition of "well". 18% p.a. failure rate doesn't seem very "well" to me, when alternatives (pill/patch) are half that, or far less (IUD/implant).

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:02PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:02PM (#481728)

            If you believe you have a better solution for yourself, then YOU PAY FOR IT. I'm not your slave.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @09:25PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @09:25PM (#481784)

              Can you just move to some desert island already and save us your anti-society rants?

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:14AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:14AM (#481879)

                Indeed, coercion is a barbaric foundation for society.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 20, @09:50PM

          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @09:50PM (#481804) Homepage Journal
          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 21, @01:23AM

          by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 21, @01:23AM (#481903) Journal

          A great idea to prevent spread of disease and fairly effective as birth control. However, add the pill and get near complete protection from pregnancy. The pill also works even when poor and rash adolescent decision making comes in to play.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by charon on Monday March 20, @06:20PM (7 children)

        by charon (5660) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @06:20PM (#481651)

        You make a good point. But condoms have been over the counter forever, but how many boys find the gumption to go buy some? I think the embarassment factor would probably work the same way if the pill were OTC.

        And yes, of course I am not expecting her to confide everything in me and/or her mother. I'm not dreading the day she sees a boy and swoons. I'm dreading the day she brings a boy home and he's an asshat like the AC up above and I have to tell her so.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:23PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:23PM (#481654)

          You just sit around, twiddling your thumbs, "dreading" the day your child gets horny.

          FUCK YOU, faggot.

          • (Score: 1) by charon on Monday March 20, @06:27PM (1 child)

            by charon (5660) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @06:27PM (#481657)
            Speak of the devil!
            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:31PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:31PM (#481658)

              I'm going to fill her tight pussy with my venom.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 20, @06:41PM (2 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday March 20, @06:41PM (#481668)

          I will buy condoms for my girls and make sure they know how to check them.
          I will let them do it in my house, preferably when we're around.
          I will tell them that, but encourage them to wait until they're mature enough to deal with it.

          There are enough things to be worried about. A parent's job is to help them be ready, and be within reach if anything goes wrong.

          May not work, like all education. But that's better than do nothing, or scare them into doing it wrong.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:57PM (#481768)

            They will live up to your expectations or, as is the case here, down to your expectations.

            The condoms will break. Just once is enough for a permanent disease.

            If you try out lots of people but don't end up with the best one you've tried, life is going to suck.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:54PM (#481831)

            Don't just teach them about condoms, get them IUDs.
            IUD usage is not correlated with increased rates of STDs which was the only significant argument for condoms over any other form of contraception.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 21, @01:25AM

          by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 21, @01:25AM (#481904) Journal

          Tell her to say she gets serious cramps.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:35PM (#481661)

      YOU buy her birth control, and YOU start the conversation about sex yourself.

      Goddamnit. "I dread the day she likes boys." FUCK YOU. You don't deserve to be a parent.

      YOU are the fucking parent, you FAGGOT.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:43PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:43PM (#481670)

      She will never need birth control. Fertility is a feature, not a defect.

      Look, I'm not even religious and I know to avoid sex until I believe that I will be with somebody until death. I in fact did that, as did my wife, at ages 22 and 19. Over 20 years later, I'm still with her. I have never had to worry about a forgotten pill, spent implant, or broken condom. We don't pay or receive child support or alimony. We don't get STDs -- not even warts or herpes. Our numerous kids have a stable home with a 100% (stay-at-home) mom.

      It's really quite simple. She should seek a spouse as soon as she is about to stop growing, expecting to find one by age 22 at the latest. (for guys: as soon as you are about to be able to support a family) When seeking a spouse, she needs to treat non-virgins like they are radioactive, possibly excepting widowers. It's safest to treat divorced parents as a big red flag. Problems with responsible planning, such as drug abuse or pointless debt, are deal breakers. She'll have an easier time avoiding bad ones if she does the asking. She'll encounter more good ones if she studies mechanical or electrical engineering.

      She can make other choices. This is gambling with life. It may work, but frequently it leads to pain: disease, poverty, custody fights, abuse, living with rotten people...

      Set an example. If you've already screwed up, own up to it. Don't make excuses. Make it clear that you expect better from her and don't think she will fail. Disparage those who fuck up, even if that means yourself.

      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Monday March 20, @08:28PM (2 children)

        by turgid (4318) on Monday March 20, @08:28PM (#481746) Journal

        Look! The American Taliban post on this site :-)

        --
        Don't let Righty keep you down.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:54PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:54PM (#481766)

          Note: not even religious

          This is just wanting a stable life that isn't fucked up and broken. Even w/o the god stuff, those old morals have a reason.

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:21PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:21PM (#481820)

            In Soviet Amerika even Taliban is secular!

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @06:50PM (#481674)

      YOU decided to create a new human being; teach that person how to responsibly handle the sexual instinct.

      YOU buy her birth control, and YOU start the conversation about sex yourself.

      Goddamnit. "I dread the day she likes boys." FUCK YOU. You don't deserve to be a parent. YOU are the fucking parent.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:30PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:30PM (#481699)

      YOU decided to create a new human being; teach that person how to responsibly handle the sexual instinct.

      YOU buy her birth control, and YOU start the conversation about sex yourself.

      Dreading the natural development of your child suggests that you do not deserve to be a parent.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:39PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @07:39PM (#481710)

        Sheesh. We get it already. Not everybody can be as enlightened as parents in the Netherlands.

        Thought I admit, it does take special talent to see the rate of incidence of teenage pregnancy in the Netherlands, see the rate of incidence of the same in the USA, and conclude that the USA has the right approach to sex ed.

        I'll make an exemption for somebody who is attempting to use their daughter's body to engage in womb warfare, but... is that something people honestly do? No, no, don't answer that. I already know the answer is "yes" in the land where they perform unnecessary and dangerous cosmetic surgery on their sons at birth.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:07PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:07PM (#481730)

          You can't argue with people who find their truth between the covers of a single book.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:37PM (#481755)

            Straw man, much?

  • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday March 20, @07:04PM

    by stormreaver (5101) on Monday March 20, @07:04PM (#481684)

    Who paid for all the studies being reviewed? Any that were done by, or paid for by, any pharmaceutical company need to be thrown out as biased. Pharmaceutical companies will tell any lie, and fake any study, to sell more drugs.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 20, @08:16PM (11 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday March 20, @08:16PM (#481737) Journal

    You hippies think you're all so clever with your "facts" and "evidence" and "proof". What about COMMON SENSE? Hmm? My ill-informed, hollywood-fed, semi-literate reactionary hindbrain knows more about complex social and medical issues than your "experts" and "doctors" and "people with direct and extensive experience of the problem" all put together. Here's an alternative fact for you: Clearly we're not punishing these so-called people hard enough for not being like me. Lock 'em up, that's what I say. Lock 'em up, or shoot 'em, and steal their stuff.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:40PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @08:40PM (#481757)

      "Steal their stuff." That is indeed your position.

      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday March 20, @10:39PM (7 children)

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday March 20, @10:39PM (#481826)

        I would like you to repay every cent of public money you've used. That includes any public schooling, calls to the police/fire department, paying for however many years (how old are you?) of lower food prices due to government subsidies. Oh, you owe a lot for all the gasoline you've used, those cheap prices required a massive military budget to lock in. Are you ready to pay back the many thousands of dollars in pubic services that you've benefited from? Your cell bill should be higher too after all the billions that we gave the telecoms for no good reason, since they just took the money we'll have you send the money back to the gov instead of your telecom.

        Hmm, I'm sure I've left something out, but basically I don't want a turd like you receiving any of the societal benefits if you think your personal morality is more important than the well being of other humans.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20, @10:56PM (#481833)

          > I'm sure I've left something out

          Roads. Bridges and every consumer good shipped across them.
          The internet, the web and everything else developed with public money.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 20, @11:45PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) on Monday March 20, @11:45PM (#481855)

          Are you ready to pay back the many thousands of dollars in pubic services that you've benefited from?

          Oh, wow! That's quite an expensive cunt or dick. :) :)

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday March 20, @11:54PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday March 20, @11:54PM (#481864)

            Nice Freudian slip brain, neuron high fives all around!

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:21AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @12:21AM (#481885)

          He wasn't arguing that taxes have never funded useful things. Also, you haven't shown that taxes were NECESSARY to bring about such things.

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday March 21, @02:57AM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday March 21, @02:57AM (#481947)

            Nope it isn't a straw man.

            "Steal their stuff." That is indeed your position.

            The stealing part is obviously referencing taxation. He is a supporter of the phrase "taxation is theft". While that can be true (corruption), ideologically it is a naive phrase. If there are no taxes in this hypothetical reality then they must repay, and continue to pay, for all the services they use. This naive person doesn't seem to comprehend the scope of what modern civilization provides and I tried to explain it with the concept of repaying the 18 - 80 years years of services they've enjoyed so far (I'm hoping they are legally adults, if it is the AC spewing vile flamebait crap then it is quite possibly some teen) . I used that example because they think their personal costs would be lower. Likely it would cost more since private businesses love their profit!

            Also, you haven't shown that taxes were NECESSARY to bring about such things.

            How ironic, now THAT is a straw man! "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." My point was that in a world without taxes there are a ton of services that would suddenly become a part of your daily/weekly/monthly bills and many costs would increase since businesses would not have the benefits of public infrastructure and government assistance. Did NOT say taxes were necessary to achieve a modern society.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday March 21, @12:46AM (1 child)

          by Justin Case (4239) on Tuesday March 21, @12:46AM (#481895)

          Repay what's been stolen from me in taxes at all levels, with the rate of return I could have obtained elsewhere, and I will happily pay for the government services I wanted out of a small fraction of that reimbursement.

          --
          Insults are an admission of defeat. The more names they call you, the closer you must be to the truth.
          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday March 21, @02:29AM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday March 21, @02:29AM (#481932)

            I will happily pay for the government services I wanted out of a small fraction of that

            See, there are fundamental government services that are a required cost. Your claim of a "small fraction" is simply incorrect. The basic requirement of living in a nation, with a government OR even corporate entities with which you enter into contract, is "a lotta money". You can't choose to not fund the military, you can't choose to fund road building, etc. Whether it is a government or various corporate entities you will be paying. This perfect freedom idea is a myth. What you want is sometimes irrelevant. Remember, just walking down the street will cost you money since every road is privatized. Basic costs will increase for individuals since there is no longer a massive network that absorbs the shock of large ticket needs. If nearly everyone participates (being good responsible citizens) you may as well call it taxation. It becomes a requirement of existing.

            After it is all said and done you will be paying. The evidence is in, most countries with a high taxation rate that provides for extensive common services happen to also have the happiest population index. You can dream of some magical world where free markets and choice fix everything, but the evidence is in from that experiment as well. Companies will gauge you, and the services from corporate entities will cost more than from government entities. Why you may ask? Because the CEO and the rest of everyone that works there wants a damn bonus and to afford nice lifestyles! Profit baby! Also, how will you stop these corporate entities from slowing buying out the competition? Corporate states is where that will lead, and then its back to a form of government. Want to exist within their domain? You pay. History shows that when a business gets that level of power, you pay everything just for the privilege of working there and they can end up owning you through debt.

            There is no "small fraction" for anyone that wants to live in an advanced society. In this society (US since they talk about ACA) we choose some of the shared costs. Your opposition to the idea of funding birth control is noted, but the smart people (on this issue) are going to oppose you since the data shows that it would be more beneficial and efficient for the entire country to do so.

            Any moral issues you have want to bring up are irrelevant, because again we are talking about reality here and there is simply no way you're ever going to get teenagers to not have sex. From a moral perspective at least access to birth control will limit the societal issues that surround teen pregnancy.

            Your hypothetical choice to pay only SOME taxes is not congruent with reality.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 20, @11:04PM (1 child)

        by Nobuddy (1626) on Monday March 20, @11:04PM (#481836)

        Anonymous posting has SO improved the quality of content here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @02:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @02:43PM (#482159)

          Not a single one of those stupid posts has been scored past 1, most 0 or less.
          But tons of nonymous idiots get their vicious, bigoted shit posted at 2 over and over again.
          Its more accurate to say that nonymous posting has not improved the quality of content here.

  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by VLM on Monday March 20, @08:17PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20, @08:17PM (#481738)

    There's at least three issues not being discussed so far

    1) Some insurance plans are really annoyed about paying prescription prices for OTC equivalents. So some people are going to lose their "free" pills that everyone is paying for. I'm actually pretty chill with paying for some random chicks BC pills because its cheaper than paying her OBGYN and paying for her kid for the next 18 years. So more babies.

    2) Most (all?) insurance plans will pay for OTC medication if a dr prescription specifies it, but this is fuzzy see above. So the fraction of women with medical insurance (which is rapidly dropping) might get all of us to pay for her OTC pills instead of prescription. Which doesn't really matter other than poor people without medical insurance will not get medical insurance they don't have pay for their pills and those are exactly the chicks we're most likely to end up paying OBGYN bills and 18 years of child care for her unwanted kid. So going OTC is going to hurt the people who are going to end up costing taxpayers the most possible money. Meanwhile its somehow justice that we all pay for some rich chick's pills because she is rich enough to have health insurance, which sounds stupid.

    3) A little google work and apparently even today there are all kinds of pills that interact with contraception pills and the OTC people are most likely to F this up because it doesn't show on the pharmacy screen because its OTC, so again the poorest uninsured are now going to get stuck with taxpayers paying for their unwanted babies. Not to mention really dumb girls (also being the easiest) and thinking they only need to take one pill the day of or something.

    Basically I see taxpayers paying for a lot more babies in the future, and the babies skewing dumb and poor. Basically the idea sucks.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @04:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21, @04:01PM (#482215)

      Wow so you take the exact opposite view from what research suggests? Virtue signal harder for your masters please.

  • (Score: 1) by leftover on Monday March 20, @09:43PM (1 child)

    by leftover (2448) on Monday March 20, @09:43PM (#481800)

    In addition to the obligatory comment that paucity of data (on juvenile use of hormone therapies) does not equate to a lower risk, it is a warning sign on its own. Compared to mature women, teens are are nearly certain to be clueless about hormone risks in general and their own sensitivities in particular. Why would they know?

    Some of the complications are life-altering, some are life-threatening with little advance warning. Not something to do without competent monitoring.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday March 21, @01:14AM

      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday March 21, @01:14AM (#481900) Journal

      What paucity of data? Young teens have been on the pill for long enough to see their grand daughters go on the pill.

(1)