Posted on 06/16/2013 8:13:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
We all know that every day, people in Mexico come across the border in pursuit of something they can't find in their country. What you may not know is that every day, people in the United States go across the border to Mexico for the same reason. They aren't looking for jobs. They're looking for birth control pills.
Why would that be? After all, Americans can get the pill without leaving their country. The reason is that in Mexico, they don't need a prescription. They don't have to see a doctor and present a scrip to a pharmacist.
They can just walk into a store and buy what they want. The cross-border alternative is cheaper, and they don't even have to go themselves -- a friend or relative can pick them up.
Last week, the Obama administration gave up its transparently political effort to enforce an age restriction on over-the-counter purchases of Plan B, the "morning-after pill" that can prevent pregnancy after sex. This helpful development creates an anomaly: Women and girls will be able to get emergency contraceptives without a prescription -- but not the regular oral contraceptives that would make them unnecessary.
It's like saying we'll treat you if you come down with the flu, but we won't give you a flu vaccine so you don't get it in the first place.
There is no obvious explanation why something used safely over half a century by hundreds of millions of women should remain so restricted. In most countries, it's not. But the U.S. government presumes that women are incapable of making this decision without the approval of a doctor.
This outmoded paternalism can't be justified by the health risks of oral contraceptives. Plenty of over-the-counter medicines are considerably more dangerous. "Nonsteroidal medicines kill far more people than birth-control pills," Dr. Eve Espey, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, referring to painkillers like Advil and Motrin, told The New York Times.
Oral contraceptives are not entirely devoid of danger. They can slightly raise the risk of certain cancers, while lowering the risks of others. They can slightly increase the incidence of heart attack and stroke, particularly for women who are over 35, have high blood pressure or smoke. But they are safe enough that doctors often prescribe them even for patients who are chaste as nuns -- to alleviate acne, severe cramps and heavy menstruation.
There happen to be a few risks in not taking the pill, like pregnancy and childbirth. Besides being desperately unwanted in many cases, they harbor serious perils of their own: diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, stroke, kidney failure and depression, and soaring college costs. Each year, some 700 American women die while giving birth.
Many contraceptives can help avert these outcomes. But few are as safe and reliable as oral contraceptives. Women who take them properly have only a 1 in 100 chance of getting pregnant in a given year -- much better odds than for those who rely on condoms or diaphragms.
Most women would love to be able to get birth control pills without the trouble and expense of seeing a physician. A poll this year found that nearly two of every three American women favor the idea. Some 30 percent of those who are now using less effective contraception, or none, said they would probably start taking the pill if they didn't have to get permission.
Doctors are warming to the idea as well. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the change as a way to improve access and stem the tide of unintended pregnancies -- which, they noted mournfully, have remained stuck at about half of all pregnancies for two decades. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would also mean fewer abortions.
Whether and when the change will occur is anyone's guess. The FDA typically waits for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to ask for reclassification before it considers action. So far, none has.
But Ibis Reproductive Health, an international nonprofit, has discussed that possibility with some drug makers. "After ACOG issued its opinion last year, the interest among pharmaceutical companies escalated a bit," Britt Wahlin, director of development and communications, told me.
Scraping the existing restriction would be a triumph of logic. Though it may pain Michael Bloomberg, a woman currently needs no prescription to have sex. She can do it strictly on her own choice. Now, there's a concept.
How many pregnancies are unintended and how many are intended for welfare purposes?
It’s the same way with asthma inhalers. You can’t get albuterol, which is a very benign drug whose affects when inhaled are completely localized, without a prescription. But you can get epinephrine, whose effects on the cardiovascular system (and others) are systemic and pronounced, right over the counter. It’s politics.
There happen to be a few risks in not taking the pill, like pregnancy and childbirth.
Besides being desperately unwanted in many cases, they harbor serious perils of their
own: diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, stroke, kidney failure and depression, and
soaring college costs. Each year, some 700 American women die while giving birth.
Soaring college costs? Offering a death toll for childbirth as an argument for birth control, yet no statistics for morbidity and mortality costs related to STD: HIV, genital herpes, and antibiotic resistant gonorrhea. How about still-developing adolescents taking hormones?
Failed argument.
Seven hundred die giving birth.
Out of 150M+ woman
Probably 50M or so of childbearing age.
How many women in that group die in automobile accidents?
The WHO classifies oral contraceptives as Class 1 carcinogens. Go ahead and play chemical russian roulette and then start wearing pink ribbons, wring your hands and gnash your teeth when the side effects manifest themselves.
Many contraceptives can help avert these outcomes
Don't fall for this line of illogic. The women who die from giving birth did not die because they did not have access to contraceptives. There is no evidence to support that these 700 women did not want to be pregnant and were simply hapless victims of a lack of contraception as the left portrays. No, they wanted to be pregnant and have their babies and they had no way to foresee that they would die (just as none of us can foresee our own deaths).
This is the kind of illogic that dominates left thinking. Conflating two unrelated things and implying cause and effect with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
Plus they didn’t die because of lack of contraceptives. They wanted to have the child.
But your auto analogy is a good one. That’s like saying someone died in an auto accident because someone didn’t stop them from getting in a car.
And how many women contracted AIDS from sexual activity in that year? I’m betting it was more than 700.
Well that further muddies the issue.
But you’re right. Are they also saying that a lack of condoms (which are easy to obtain) contributed to x number of aids cases per year? No, that would be ridiculous logic, but they don’t mind using ridiculous logic with it comes to abortion and/or contraceptives.
This article supports the argument that men should not write stories about women and reproductive health.
I just want to know who got the idea that pregnancy and childbirth should somehow be thought of as horribly dangerous endeavors.
Maybe 100 years ago they were. It’s not zero by any means. Most things don’t have zero mortality.
But, anything to shove contraception down the throats of preteens.
In latin american countries, the pharmacist is considered your first stop for medical care. You go there first, describe your problem, and he sells you what he thinks you need. If he thinks you need to see a doctor, he tells you and you go from there.
You don’t need a prescription for nearly as many things there as you do here.
In border states its not unusual for people to cross the border for their medication, and in some cases for medical care too. As our medical system here unravels, its probably going to become more common than ever.
Is it paternalism, or looking out for the guild interests of physicians?
A lot of what kept American health care costs high before Obamacare started driving them even higher were government measures that supported the maintenance of monopoly rents for physicians (as a guild), hospitals, and pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.
Mexico has more health freedom than the US.
Adult Americans should be free to buy medicine without permission from the government or the government’s assigned permission-givers (at least medicine that will not cause someone else to die).
Want someone to die? Give them a little too much Tylenol. Every medicine has some negative effects, even in its intended, therapeutic dosage. Most have catastrophic negative effects at higher dosage.
Thanks to modern medicine, giving birth is not nearly as dangerous as it was in centuries past.
Of my four great-grandmothers, one died giving birth (or shortly afterwards)--a 25% rate. Julius Caesar's only daughter died after giving birth to her child by Pompey--a 100% rate.
But if Julius Caesar had four daughters, and only one died in childbirth, that would be 25%.
the “pill” is fairly safe.
The “sex” part is not. STD’s, HIV, Cervical cancer are all the real reasons for the yearly exams. (yes, I know the “offical” word is not you need a pap every three years...with the HPV vaccine, that might be okay for cancer, but not for STd’s).
As for going to Mexican Pharmacies, most of those doing this are getting antibiotics or their normal medicines, which are cheaper in Mexico...
of course, the medicine might be counterfeit medicines from China or India, but given that a lot of US medicines are also now made in China, the dirty little secret is that the FDA isn’t doing proper inspections of the Chinese plants anyway....
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.