Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/4/2006 3:28:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 3:45:03 PM EDT by ErinGirl]
I just saw a press release that, after alot of pressure, Wal-Mart will start selling the "morning after" pill at all stores. Currently, only two Wal-Mart outlets stock this item.

How do you feel about this? As a woman? As a mom?

Link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAL_MART_CONTRACEPTION?SITE=NCCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:02:43 PM EDT
OK, everyone's reading and no one is even voting.

Mod -- please delete since no one is willing to respond.

Thank you.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:03:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 4:04:23 PM EDT by ErinGirl]
Dup
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 5:11:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 7:49:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SP1Grrl:
There should be an age limit. I'm surprised Wally World's going to stock it, to be honest.



Link: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

The problem I see with it is there is no approval for women under 16. There is no research to indicate this is safe for menstruating girls under 16. What prevents some 16 year old friend from buying this pill for her pal that is anywhere from 11-15?

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:01:03 PM EDT
From what you have posted, and the way you have said it, I will assume that you are 16 or close to it. I posted this a couple of weeks ago here.

as far as I'm concerned the legal thing has to do with a private company(wallyworld) being forced to sell the product.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:16:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 8:23:37 PM EDT by Gravitas1]
everyone understands it's NOT an abortion pill and that it's simply another form of birth control right?

Second, what i'm hearing is that, even though wally is "carrying" the pill, they've said that IF their pharmacists feel uncomfortable selling the pill, then they may refer the customer to a different pharmacy (refuse to sell it). In other words, I think wally will "sell" the pill to get the gov or other interest groups off their back, but they're going to encourage/force their employees NOT to actually sell it. They'll just keep some in stock so they can claim they sell it. That's just my guess.

It will be their stated policy to sell the pill.
It will be their common practice NOT to sell it.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:19:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 8:21:12 PM EDT by Gravitas1]

Originally Posted By ErinGirl:

Originally Posted By SP1Grrl:
There should be an age limit. I'm surprised Wally World's going to stock it, to be honest.



Link: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

The problem I see with it is there is no approval for women under 16. There is no research to indicate this is safe for menstruating girls under 16. What prevents some 16 year old friend from buying this pill for her pal that is anywhere from 11-15? hopefully nothing




Isn't it a bad idea for an 11 year old to be a mom? Isn't it also dangerous for a girl that young to give birth?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:56:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gravitas1:
everyone understands it's NOT an abortion pill and that it's simply another form of birth control right?



Actually, it IS an abortion pill. It is not the same as ru-486, but it still can cause an abortion. Even the drug makers admit that. There has been a big media push to hide that fact. The morning after pill is a stronger version of the birth control pill-- both work to prevent ovulation, but also work to prevent any newly conceived life from implanting in the uterine lining.

the morning after pill can be taken up to 72 hours after sex, but if an egg was released, it only survives about 24 hours. What good is the pill then? None, unless it works another way (which it does). If the egg is fertilized before the pill is taken, the pill affects the endometrium making it inhospitable to the baby trying to implant in it. Thus, it causes a chemical abortion. It may prevent ovulation, thus acting as a contraceptive, but it also acts as an abortifacient.

here is some more info

There's nothing new about the "new" "morning after pill," Preven. It's just the old birth control pill in super-high doses wrapped up in a box with an image of a carefree '90s woman, a pregnancy home-test, instructions and a price tag of $25 to $35. Even the spokesman for the drug company that makes it says, "it's really just repackaging and re- marketing." What is new, however, is the definition of pregnancy that marketing strategists and Preven promoters are using to sell very early abortion as pregnancy prevention.

Doctors have given women fearing unwanted pregnancy concentrated birth control hormones within 72 hours of sex ever since Albert Yuzpe observed their effect on the endometrium (lining of the womb) in the 1970s: the hormones make the womb a hostile environment for a newly fertilized egg. For all these years, the use of the drugs has been unofficial, little known and called the Yuzpe regimen.

Like the Yuzpe regimen, Preven makes women vomit, bleed, feel sick and dizzy and, 75% of the time (according to optimistic website advertising), if she is pregnant (and no one can be sure if she is), shed an unwanted fertilized egg.

Jennifer Kessell, spokeswoman for Roberts Pharmaceuticals, the Oakville, Ont., Canadian manufacturer of the drug, sells Preven as though it were a new shade of eyeliner. "They're not sure of the ins and outs of it," she says. "But it's thought to work two main ways." First, by delaying ovulation, and second, by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg into the women's uterus. More often it would prevent implantation, she confirms. Ms. Kessell offers Preven as an alternative to abortion which "ends the life that is already implanted." She also calls it "emergency contraception" that prevents pregnancy.

But isn't Preven for women who believe they are already pregnant? Is this a new definition of pregnancy? "There's different definitions [of pregnancy] depending on where you live," offers Ms. Kessell. "Most doctors would say pregnancy begins at implantation," she continues. Only "anti- abortionists" would say life begins "when the sperm meets the egg. Period." Pregnancy begins when a woman is "comfortable" with it beginning, she adds . "It depends on your own personal views and what you want to believe."

"Biologically, physically, genetically, embryologically, pregnancy begins at conception," counters Calgary pharmacist Maria Bizecki, who belongs to Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience, an Alberta group that is lobbying for pharmacists' right to refuse to dispense abortifacients. "The public is being lied to about the way this works. Preven terminates a pregnancy in its very early stages," she emphasizes.

Planned Parenthood is promoting "Preven moments" for "non-consensual sex," " condom breakage," "birth control failure" or "moments of passion." It would like to see the drug available without a prescription. Alberta Pro- Life's Joanne Hatton is especially concerned about the effect this would have on young women and girls who may be pressured by boyfriends into taking the drug and exposed repeatedly to its unknown toxic effects.

Asked about the effects of repeat exposure to Preven, Ms. Kessell's answer is not entirely reassuring: "There's nothing known yet."

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:02:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 9:04:09 PM EDT by Mattl]

Originally Posted By ErinGirl:
I just saw a press release that, after alot of pressure, Wal-Mart will start selling the "morning after" pill at all stores. Currently, only two Wal-Mart outlets stock this item.

How do you feel about this? As a woman? As a mom?

Link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAL_MART_CONTRACEPTION?SITE=NCCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT




Perscription only? Reasonably priced?



I live in Louisiana so unless the price is exorbatent(pricing out many) it is a good thing. LESS STATE DEPENDENTS! Otherwise could not care who sells it, but think it should be available in the event of prophylactic slipups.



ETA: Curious when was the last time a ladies forum thread got locked? I smell a shitstorm.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 5:24:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 5:31:14 AM EDT by No_Expert]
Well, I think they ought to include one in in every box of condoms as a "free prize" and make them fruit flavored.

The best hope is your teen kids aren't having sex....if they are without your knowledge, they are hopefully using protection, but common sense isn't common.

No Expert

ETA:

After reading LoonyBin's post, does a less than 72 hour old fertilized egg qualify as a fetus? 2-10 cells, no organs, no blood, no brain stem....

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:39:12 AM EDT
I am a proponent of the pill.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:59:04 PM EDT
No, I'm not 16 but I do have 4 nieces that are teenagers and it concerns me. But, what do I know, I guess I've been hiding under a rock too long.

So, if no one else cares then I guess I shouldn't either.

To clarify my previous post, if an 11-year old needs a morning after pill I think the Mom of that 11-year old should be aware of it. No, I do not think an 11-15 year old girl needs to be pregnant but I think the parents should be aware of the activity leading up to needing that pill. Maybe some intervention is needed? Hanging with the wrong friends, lack of supervision, etc.?

My niece has a friend from school that just had an abortion (she's 16). Since the abortion (two months ago), this girl has gone to Planned Parenthood every WEEK and gotten a morning after pill. I'm sure she's not the only teenager running over to PP on a weekly basis. This is 8 pills in 2 months. And...why isn't PP talking to her or putting her on the pill instead of just handing these things out like they are jelly beans.

So, teenagers seem to think this is just another form of birth control. There's a whole slew of side effects listed proving that continued use can cause other medical problems. Yes, they stress it's not a birth control pill but are these young girls really listening? No, of course not.

But like I said, I guess I shouldn't care since no one seems to think it even matters.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:18:24 PM EDT
Eringirl, I can tell you haven't been around here very long. It's not that alot of us don't care it's more to do with the pissing contest that will ensue and this thread will get locked/and or someone banned. Everyone has their beliefs and what this comes down to is whether or not you are pro choice. Hence why I will stay out of the discussion.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 5:39:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrsWildweasel:
Eringirl, I can tell you haven't been around here very long. It's not that alot of us don't care it's more to do with the pissing contest that will ensue and this thread will get locked/and or someone banned. Everyone has their beliefs and what this comes down to is whether or not you are pro choice. Hence why I will stay out of the discussion.



Roger.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:31:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrsWildweasel:
Eringirl, I can tell you haven't been around here very long. It's not that alot of us don't care it's more to do with the pissing contest that will ensue and this thread will get locked/and or someone banned. Everyone has their beliefs and what this comes down to is whether or not you are pro choice. Hence why I will stay out of the discussion.



+1
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:41:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 7:03:53 PM EDT by Krackels]
Personally, I can't believe the FDA actually passed this pill as safe. Was thinking about RU-486.



Mark my words, if something isn't done we're guaranteed to see teenage pregnancy on the rise.



The "cushion" of a morning after pill will give kids (I say it loosely meaning foolish sexually active people) the idea that even if they do get pregnant they'll be able to deal with it without having "an abortion" or carry the pregnancy to term.

I think it's immoral, unsafe (obviously to the unborn child) but also to the mother, and sad that a mega-corporation like Walmart would cave under the legal presure of PP and other pro-abortion (pro-choice) groups. Just sad.

Fortunately, I've heard that pharmacists that work for Walmart aren't forced to dispense the medication. If only every pharmacist read the studies and was level headed.

Me --> <-- Local Walmart rep.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:51:43 PM EDT
What's with the unfair poll. You've been hanging around CBS haven't you.

5 possible responses.

1 obviously negative
1 semi-neutral
3 I'm happy we now have another way to kill unborn children.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 6:59:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 2:52:34 PM EDT by Krackels]
.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:27:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 5:27:21 AM EDT by PlaymoreMinds]

Originally Posted By diabolical_chicken:

Originally Posted By MrsWildweasel:
Eringirl, I can tell you haven't been around here very long. It's not that alot of us don't care it's more to do with the pissing contest that will ensue and this thread will get locked/and or someone banned. Everyone has their beliefs and what this comes down to is whether or not you are pro choice. Hence why I will stay out of the discussion.



+1



I am diggin' your artistically theatrical sigline there, D-C!

When that song is done right, the rest of Godspell could look like crap and it will STILL get a good review!
<wishes she could sing>

Sorry for the hijack Erin...but Mrs WW is right. How do you think I got such a high post count? Because I am a slow learner...and I have less restraint than some of the females here...and feel the need to comment on these issues.
Having already done so in previous threads, I'm here to say this issue will always divide people.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:12:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Krackels:
Personally, I can't believe the FDA actually passed this pill as safe. Was thinking about RU-486.



Mark my words, if something isn't done we're guaranteed to see teenage pregnancy on the rise.



The "cushion" of a morning after pill will give kids (I say it loosely meaning foolish sexually active people) the idea that even if they do get pregnant they'll be able to deal with it without having "an abortion" or carry the pregnancy to term.

I think it's immoral, unsafe (obviously to the unborn child) but also to the mother, and sad that a mega-corporation like Walmart would cave under the legal presure of PP and other pro-abortion (pro-choice) groups. Just sad.

Fortunately, I've heard that pharmacists that work for Walmart aren't forced to dispense the medication. If only every pharmacist read the studies and was level headed.

Me --> <-- Local Walmart rep.



I think its sligtly ridiculous that the morning after pill is going to be sold at a store like walmart. I also agree that it IS an abortion pill, as loonybin pointed out ... urgh I don't even know what else to say, it frustrates me. People should be dealing with the consequences of their actions. If they had unprotected sex then they would need something like this ... I think its something that should be used in cases of rape etc (as abortions should be). So if they had sex with a condom and birth control wouldn't they not think that an egg had been fertilized etc and that they will not be pregnant ... what use would the morning after pill be then? But when its taken because you know you probably got pregnant, then that to me counts as it being an abortion pill.

-- I know that this is just my opinion and that many of you probably won't agree with me but I wanted to share my thoughts on the topic. Please don't chew me out on it.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:48:24 PM EDT
I've looked at the FDA specs and personally, I think something so miraculous as conception should never be viewed as a problem, issue or otherwise bad thing even in such cases as rape and incest (which make up 1% or less of all abortions anyway).

But what really got me mad is the idea, in this day and age where "just trying" and "doing your best" is so emphasized, that we won't be burdened by the possibility of pregnancy where one should just try and do your best to give the fetus or unborn child every chance to even live.

I think because it has the capability of preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus it indeed performs the act of abortion, just at a earlier level of development than any doctor would be allowed to do.

That is all. If you have further comments or beef with my opinions feel free to IM me.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:51:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Krackels:
What's with the unfair poll. You've been hanging around CBS haven't you.

5 possible responses.

1 obviously negative
1 semi-neutral
3 I'm happy we now have another way to kill unborn children.



No, I haven't been watching CBS. I don't even subscribe to cable because I think TV is crap. I'd rather read the paper on the Internet and read a book than watch the liberals hack at everything and have to wade through the "mis-news".

I thought of what the possible responses might be and put them out there. I realize that folks are divided on this issue. I had a conversation with a mother of 3 today (who has a daughter turning 13 next month). Her daughter has friends with older sisters etc. old enough to buy this pill for her kid if needed and that possibility upset her.

As grown women, of course, we all have a right to make a conscience course. I think, in the hands of teenagers though, well....what do they really know about boundaries? This pill is an emergency one-shot deal and not for repeated use. A grown woman that's taken the pill for any length of time understands that and would use this with that understanding. It delivers 3-4 times the amount of estrogen as a regular b/c pill in one shot in addition to whatever else it contains.

I'm more concerned about what the medical consequences are long-term for young girls taking this easy way out. Hey, people are going to do whatever they are going to do. However, there just isn't enough research on usage by menstruating females 12-16 to market it without a prescription.
I just don't think it's safe enough to unleash on the young masses.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:26:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ErinGirl:
I'm more concerned about what the medical consequences are long-term for young girls taking this easy way out. Hey, people are going to do whatever they are going to do. However, there just isn't enough research on usage by menstruating females 12-16 to market it without a prescription.
I just don't think it's safe enough to unleash on the young masses.



what are the medical consequences?

-breast cancer (do you really think it's just a coincidence that the rate of breast cancer has gone up since the Pill and abortion have become so widespread?)
-cervical cancer (conflicting studies say it reduces it, others say it increases it)
-stroke
-hypertension
-blood clots. 2 months ago we put an Inferior Vena Cava filter in a 16-year old who was on the Pill (w/o parents' knowledge), because she had blood clots in both legs and up her IVC (the vein returning blood from the lower body to the heart). Without that filter, blood clots had a better chance of getting to the lungs, which can be fatal.


And to think that a state can force a business to sell a drug that is completely and purely elective, does nothing to cure or heal a disease or illness, and has the potential for abuse is simply inexcusable.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:31:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By loonybin:

Originally Posted By ErinGirl:
I'm more concerned about what the medical consequences are long-term for young girls taking this easy way out. Hey, people are going to do whatever they are going to do. However, there just isn't enough research on usage by menstruating females 12-16 to market it without a prescription.
I just don't think it's safe enough to unleash on the young masses.



what are the medical consequences?

-breast cancer (do you really think it's just a coincidence that the rate of breast cancer has gone up since the Pill and abortion have become so widespread?)
-cervical cancer (conflicting studies say it reduces it, others say it increases it)
-stroke
-hypertension
-blood clots. 2 months ago we put an Inferior Vena Cava filter in a 16-year old who was on the Pill (w/o parents' knowledge), because she had blood clots in both legs and up her IVC (the vein returning blood from the lower body to the heart). Without that filter, blood clots had a better chance of getting to the lungs, which can be fatal.


And to think that a state can force a business to sell a drug that is completely and purely elective, does nothing to cure or heal a disease or illness, and has the potential for abuse is simply inexcusable.



Hormonal imbalance and glucose intolerance is also known with repeated or continued use.
Top Top