Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Girls as young as 13 to get morning-after pill
Daily Express ^ | 2/28/2007

Posted on 02/28/2007 3:12:47 AM PST by markomalley

SCHOOLGIRLS as young as 13 are to be supplied with the morning-after pill in a desperate attempt to cut teen pregnancies.

In a controversial move, pharmacies are to hand out the pills free to youngsters who fear they might be pregnant, without the consent of their parents.

The morning-after pill became available over the counter in 2001 and can be bought by anyone over 16.

In this latest move to reduce teen pregnancies, which has been attacked by pro-life groups and religious leaders, girls will not need parental consent for the pill but will need to prove their age.

Health chiefs in Portsmouth that insist the move is necessary to slash the number of teenage pregnancies in their area. Pregnancies among girls aged 15 to 17 in the city are around 26 per cent above the national average.

Although the age of consent for sex is 16, no fewer than 7,464 girls under that age – some as young as 13 – became pregnant in England in 2005, a rise of 283 on 2004.

Nearly six in 10 pregnancies ended in abortion. This was the biggest single annual increase in under-age pregnancies for a decade.

Many chemists now provide the morning-after pill either free on the NHS, or over the counter for around £25.

That has meant fewer women and young girls going to their GP for wider contraceptive advice.

Portsmouth health chiefs say the 12 pharmacists taking part in the new scheme will check whether the girls understand the pros and cons.

They must also check girls’ health and possibly refer them to a GP or family-planning clinic.

At the Portsmouth City Primary Care Trust, public health director Paul Edmondson-Jones said: “At the moment you can buy emergency contraception over the counter for about £25. But that amount is a huge barrier.”

Life charity spokeswoman Michaela Aston said the move was “very very worrying”.

She added: “The morning-after pill is a strong drug that is 50 times more powerful than the mini pill.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: abortifacient; abortion; teenpregnancy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: mkjessup
Correction:

The rest of the article is at:

http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000341.html
21 posted on 02/28/2007 6:00:52 AM PST by mkjessup (If Reagan were still with us, he'd say "Chairman Martinez? Tear DOWN those RINOS!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I'm sarcastic as well as persistent.

I cast no doubt on your "exploding womb" statement. Unfortunately, those who might need it most will simply dismiss it. Regardless, we are often called to be the "messengers" and we should be armed with knowledge.

It seems to me that introducing something so volatile and "unnatural" into the body would be bound to meet with unpredictable outcomes.

This would seem to be a class action suit in waiting.


22 posted on 02/28/2007 6:04:55 AM PST by incredulous joe ("If you want the truth ask a four year old,... or a drunk." -- anon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup; incredulous joe

"Exploding womb"? I think that's goofy ... and I've been pregnant ten times, and experienced (among other things) uterine hemorrhage.


23 posted on 02/28/2007 6:14:13 AM PST by Tax-chick (Every "choice" has a direct object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I think that's goofy ... and I've been pregnant ten times, and experienced (among other things) uterine hemorrhage.
Did you experience that hemorrhage under a doctor's care, or on your own?

Ten kids? I'm impressed.
24 posted on 02/28/2007 6:16:23 AM PST by mkjessup (If Reagan were still with us, he'd say "Chairman Martinez? Tear DOWN those RINOS!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I'd love to stay focused on the facts, but you'd have to come along for the ride as well.

If human life begins at conception (not before, but at the moment of conception), and a drug (let's call it a contraceptive) works prior to conception, then by the definition every pro-life person I've ever spoken to uses, no human life is taken, as there is no conception. Life does NOT begin with the completion of the sex act. The morning after pill (emergency contraception) is an example of the above. RU-486 is an abortion pill, as it works after conception.

That's not just splitting hairs.


25 posted on 02/28/2007 6:18:32 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dmz
We're not talking about contraceptives which prevent fertilization. That is a straw man that has no business being erected here (pun intended).

Life does NOT begin with the completion of the sex act.

It does if that sex act results in the male fertilization of the female egg.

Conception occurs when the male spermatozoa meets and successfully penetrates the female egg. That usually takes place in one of the two fallopian tubes, and by the time the fertilized egg makes it's way into the uterus, it is ready to implant itself into the uterine lining where the pregnancy PROCEEDS. Note, it *proceeds* because life has already begun at the point of conception. Fertilization has already occurred. If a drug is administered to make it impossible for that fertilized egg to implant itself into the uterine lining, that is effectively an early (very early) abortion, as the fertilized egg is capable of cell multiplication and culminating in a human life born into the world.

The 'morning after' pill may be marketed as 'emergency contraception' but if the net result is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, then it is not a contraceptive, it is an abortificant.
26 posted on 02/28/2007 6:25:57 AM PST by mkjessup (If Reagan were still with us, he'd say "Chairman Martinez? Tear DOWN those RINOS!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Ten pregnancies, eight children. The hemorrhage was following a miscarriage, and I did see a doctor, yes.


27 posted on 02/28/2007 6:35:38 AM PST by Tax-chick (Every "choice" has a direct object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

My point was that I think "exploding womb" is a crazy description. I have had two children since my last miscarriage, so obviously my uterus suffered no significant damage.

And enough of that ... yuck! :-).


28 posted on 02/28/2007 6:37:46 AM PST by Tax-chick (Every "choice" has a direct object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

RU-486 is very, very rarely used as emergency contraception. And for clarification, the "morning after" pill, which is what the article we are responding to is about, is a separate medication all together. So, they are very different and lumping the two together is not a wise idea when trying to get a point across. But kudos to you for digging hard enough to back-up your misstatement.

"The bottom line is that all the aforementioned methods are classified together as options to terminate a pregnancy, and all serve the same purpose. Please do some more moral contemplation when you have time to consider the consequences of such FDA-approved poisons on an unborn child."

Spare me the morality speech, please. I'm pro-life. I just want us to have our facts straight.


29 posted on 02/28/2007 6:46:07 AM PST by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Well said, dmz. I'm too tired from being up all night with my 10 month old to be as concise as you've been, so thank you.


30 posted on 02/28/2007 6:48:53 AM PST by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Kind of chuckling. I'm pretty sure I understand the mechanics of conception. I think we've gotten all of the major talking points out there by now, so, I'll bid you a fond adieu on this topic for now.


31 posted on 02/28/2007 6:50:00 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Placemarker


32 posted on 02/28/2007 8:33:09 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Actually, as another poster pointed out to me recently, even standard birth control can cause an abortion.

According to this link (there are more links available):

"How do these pills work? They basically have three effects. The first effect is the thickening of the mucous plug at the opening of the cervix, the mouth of the womb. This provides something of a natural barrier to the passage of sperm into the womb. This is a contraceptive function, as it prevents the union of sperm and egg.

There’s a second effect, which usually is the primary effect, and that is the suppression of ovulation. A projected ovulation is simply blocked and does not occur. The sperm may well be deposited in her female tract; they may swim through her tubes and out to the ovaries, but if there is no egg to fertilize, then we have a primary effect, an action technically called “temporary sterilization”—or, in more common, but less accurate language, “contraception.”

There is a third effect of the contraceptive pill. This effect is on the lining of the womb. What this does is to harden the lining of the womb—we say, make it hostile to implantation to this one-week-old embryo. If this is the function that prevents “pregnancy” that month, then it is implantation that is prevented. And this implantation, if prevented, kills a tiny one-week-old baby."

See more:
http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html


33 posted on 02/28/2007 11:52:29 PM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell; All

And informative post, thanks for that.

I personally have no moral problem with the suppression of ovulation, or barrier methods which prevent the fertilization of the egg, but once that egg IS fertilized, it contains all of the essential elements necessary to become a viable human being.

When is 'viable'? That standard is being pushed back pretty regularly now, with 22 weeks being the most current number I've heard bandied about.

Now the various abortificants can be labeled with any name the manufacturers put on them, and people can debate the differences between them until the cows come home, but once again: the bottom line is that these medications in the presence of a fertilized egg have no other purpose except that of an abortificant.

Poison is poison, just ask the unborn child.


34 posted on 03/01/2007 5:07:41 AM PST by mkjessup (My mechanic said "I can't fix your brakes, so I made your horn louder" - Stephen Wright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

The morning after pill is not the same drug as RU-486 (which is mifepristone), but don't let ignorance stand in the way of having a firm opinion! :)


35 posted on 03/01/2007 5:10:24 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

"A spate of exploding wombs"

Wow, you'd think that would be on the news every night, women with their own built-in IEDs. Hope you're not standing next to a woman on the subway when THAT happens.


36 posted on 03/01/2007 5:11:56 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

well dont get your knickers all in a twist......


37 posted on 03/01/2007 5:26:24 AM PST by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

They're not, I assure you. I just hate to see people deal with an emotional topic like this without having facts at their disposal.


38 posted on 03/01/2007 5:29:57 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All

If, God forbid, my young daughter were ever raped and I found out quickly enough, you bet your life I'd want her to have that pill and whatever else she needed to avoid pregnancy.

You bet I would!


39 posted on 03/01/2007 5:30:52 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: zook; mkjessup

I belive if one is treated soon enough after a rape at a medical facility, they can sometimes prevent conception.

As a Catholic, I am opposed to birth control, but I understand that people are going to use it. If they do, I don't have a problem with contraception that prevents ovulation or conception, but once conception is occured, there is a person in the earliest phases of development. Contraceptive methods that prevent that person from implanting are an abortaficient.


40 posted on 03/01/2007 12:47:37 PM PST by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson