Entry: When 'Plan B' Becomes Plan A Monday, August 28, 2006



The FDA recently approved making a drug called "Plan B" available over the counter, with no prescription necessary. A woman who takes it up to three days after intercourse can substantially reduce her chance to become pregnant. Thanks to Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA), who strong-armed the agency by blocking the nominations of Lester Crawford and Andrew von Eschenbach as FDA Commissioner, anyone over 18 can walk into a CVS or Rite-Aid and buy it off the shelf. We all know that age restrictions keep cigarettes and alcohol out of the hands of children, so it's sure to work for the "morning after" pill, right?

The drug itself is not a bad thing. Unlike the controversial RU-486, it will not stop a pregnancy once it's begun. The problem is making it available without a prescription, when one is even required for birth control pills. And even the supposed protection of only allowing its sale to those 18 and older is already under assault. A group called The Center for Reproductive Rights (by which is meant Consequence-Free Sex) plans to force the FDA to drop any age restriction whatsoever through lawsuits, and Planned Parenthood has already attacked "the scientifically baseless restriction imposed on teenagers." If I know Planned Parenthood, they'll probably set out candy dishes full of Plan B at their clinics, like M&Ms at a never-ending party. Plan B will soon become the primary contraceptive of choice.

Plan B is merely a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good or ill. The Left will use this one to promote promiscuous, responsibility-free sex among progressively younger children, part of the plan to accelerate the moral decay we already see around us. Those who would have abstained from sex through fear of pregnancy, or not wanting to go through an abortion, will no longer have these excuses. Plan B not only prevents pregnancy, but prevents the user from having to take any responsibility for choosing whether to have sex. Just pop a pill, and stop worrying.

Of course, there are few better ways to drive Liberals into a foaming-mouthed frenzy than speaking about responsibility, self-restraint and discipline -- especially concerning sex. For some reason, Liberals believe that the more people act like dogs in the street, rutting whenever, wherever and with whom they happen to be when the urge strikes, the more "enlightened" they are. It's getting to the point where the dogs will probably begin complaining about the people problem.

Those on the Left tell us that it's wrong to place moral or legal restrictions on young people having sex -- or abortions, or drugs, or anything to let them escape the responsibilities that go along with it -- because they'll just do it anyway. I don't know why more people don't use that "argument" to attack laws against murder, theft and tax evasion. After all, if people are going to do these things despite the rules, why have any rules at all? The next time I get a speeding ticket, perhaps I'll whip out the "people do it anyway" defense.

All too often, the reason given for having unprotected sex is, "it just happened so quickly," as though feeling an urge is an adequate explanation for lack of restraint. Liberals promote instantaneous gratification as though it were some sort of civil right. More than half of American children have already become sexually active by the time they reach 17, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The teen pregnancy rate is significantly higher among Americans than in other developed countries, and nearly 80% of teen pregnancies are unplanned. Obviously, there is a problem here, and making it easier to simply get rid of those pregnancies is not the answer. The question we need to ask is, why is sex so devalued among young people that they see no reason for self-discipline?

The problem lies in the general lack of morals and loose standards that encourage such self-destructive behavior. Uninvolved parents allow the Left to indoctrinate the young into their cult of irresponsibility through schools, television and unsupervised use of the internet. If more parents would work harder at parenting, it would be more difficult for Liberals to spread their corruption. Unfortunately, most kids spend their days bombarded by Left-wing propaganda, and nights and weekends climbing mountains of homework. Even with parents willing to reach out, there isn't much time for family interaction these days. It's understandable that parents don't want to waste what little time they spend with their children on lectures. Still, the only way to reclaim the younger generation is for parents to make the time to instill moral values in their children. Schools are not doing that job, nor is it their job to do.

The only good that is likely to come of Plan B's widespread use is a reduction in abortions -- personally, I'd rather see lives never begun than see them killed before birth. The downside, of course, will be a continued diminution of common morality and an increase in sexual activity among teenagers (and younger children), accompanied by a rise in sexually-transmitted diseases among the young.

As sex becomes the meaningless equivalent of a handshake, don't be surprised when your first grader
comes home with the clap before learning to write in cursive.

   7 comments

Diane
August 28, 2006   07:33 AM PDT
 
Great post my friend.

"As sex becomes the meaningless equivalent of a handshake, don't be surprised when your first grader comes home with the clap before learning to write in cursive."The Cavalier

I doubt sex will ever become meaningless knowing human nature. Kids are kids and adults are adults. Teenagers are caught in between. I believe it is for parents to guide their children and give them the frame they need on personal matters and self esteem not to social policies. American parents are doing a fine job, as I look at the society. I am more worried about SA where too much restrictions are driving kids and adults crazy and in places such as Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Cambodia and Nepal (Russia and China also are really bad) where child prostitution is a tragic reality.

I would not worry too much about morality and sex, America is too "moral" to ever become like the terrible immoral Holland who gave us Van Gogh and Irshi Ali in this war on Islamo-fascism. (OT: Also many favorite artists from the past such as Rembrandt, Vermeer, Vincent van Gogh, Escher and the great Willem de Kooning who adopted the US!)

Too much to the right or too much to the left and we lose perspective.
John Dias
August 28, 2006   07:50 AM PDT
 
Just one clarification. You said “it will not stop a pregnancy once it has begun.” But in fact, it will RARELY stop an existing pregnancy. In some cases, the drug prevents implantation of the fertilized egg into the uterine wall (effectively causing an abortion). Its only saving grace is that its purpose is not to cause an abortion. However, someone who would go to the trouble of taking Plan B to prevent a pregnancy after sex is probably just as likely to cause an abortion if the pregnancy could not have been prevented; in other words, the abortion will become far less frequent, if not quieter (and better yet, unintended).
SalGal
August 28, 2006   09:56 AM PDT
 
Um, not to put a fly in your ointment John, but the life has already begun when the egg is fertilized. So although it's not an abortion in the traditional sense, it still is one. The only thing that stops a pregnancy from happening without destroying a life is birth control, or better yet, abstinence. But I guess that would be too much to ask from our entitlement society.
HARDCASe
August 28, 2006   04:25 PM PDT
 
I assume that no liability is going to attach to the improper use of the 'morning after' pill. If not, can you imagine what is going to happen to our already overburdened legal system? Sometimes I think that all of this garbage is to cause the purposeful collapse of our Republic. No legal system would do it!!!

NA
August 31, 2006   12:27 AM PDT
 
I disagree that Plan B should need a prescription. Whether society is morally degenerating or not, more restrictions are not an answer. Adults should be able to buy drugs over the counter if they are safe, and prescriptions should be attached for medical reasons. It is not for the government to legislate based on sexual morals.
a woman
September 8, 2006   11:58 AM PDT
 
I've had to take the morning after pill. It is a last resort because it is not comfortable. You have cramping for a week, and you bleed whether it's that time of the month or not - and that's without mentioning the stress you have in case it doesn't work.

It is nothing like candy. You only have to take it once to never want to take it again and always remember your regular birth control method.

But thank god for it! Thank god. I hate children. I don't want them. And my doctors say I cannot have a tubal ligation until I'm in my mid thirties, in case I "change my mind" and suddenly love something I have always hated.

And for me to abstain from sex with my boyfriend of 5 years is ridiculous. I'm practically thirty and I have no intention of having children, marrying or suddenly becoming celibate for fear of pregnancy.

As with just about any drug you put on the market, people will take advantage. But I know from experience it won't be nearly as bad as you're assuming because no one will actually want to take the last minute emergency contraception on a regular basis.

You're using the typical slippery slope fallacy in arguing - it just gets worse and worse and worse. You're smart enough to know better than that - I hope.
CavalierX
September 8, 2006   10:06 PM PDT
 
But of course, if you're the type of person who uses a "regular birth control method," then you're hardly the type who would turn to Plan B to escape responsibility, are you? And the "slippery slope" argument is only a fallacy when not true. The fact is that if you subsidise or reward a type of behavior, you encourage it.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments