SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)
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 2017, @02:57AM
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~