(no subject)
Jun. 13th, 2004 08:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamer_easySaw this headline in the online Sun Herald: "Morning after pill to face new ban" with this subheading: "Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott wants to make the controversial morning after pill a prescription-only drug just six months after it was made available over the pharmacy counter."
Thought, "Hmmm, there have been concerns raised about inadequate medical advice given to women by pharmacists - maybe that would be the right thing to do."
Actually read the article. "Citing concern about reports of girls as young as 13 requesting the emergency contraception, Mr Abbott said..."
Slapped forehead. This isn't about women's health. Duh. It's about punishing teenage girls who have sex by forcing them to have pregnancies* or abortions. (The federal govt also wants to make children's health records available to their parents, preventing many youngsters from discussing sexual health or contraception with their doctors. This will cost lives.) Sensible response from health worker: "The bigger question is how can sex education programs ensure there is no need for the morning after pill." Few thirteen year olds are mature enough or knowledgeable enough to make good decisions about sex - they need all the help and advice they can get before the (f)act. The government's attempt to keep kids ignorant and then punishing girls (and not boys) for that ignorance is transparent hypocrisy.
When a pharmacist sells the morning-after pill, not only should they be able to provide advice, but everyone buying it should be given a free booklet in their first language which includes a URL and well-staffed 1-800 number for further advice.
Oddly, there's no sign of a ban on liposuction on 15 year old girls - with their parents' consent.
* The morning-after pill mostly works by preventing ovulation, thus preventing conception. It can also work by preventing the egg from being moved to the uterus, also preventing conception; and by preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterine wall, preventing pregnancy. More info from PPFA.
Thought, "Hmmm, there have been concerns raised about inadequate medical advice given to women by pharmacists - maybe that would be the right thing to do."
Actually read the article. "Citing concern about reports of girls as young as 13 requesting the emergency contraception, Mr Abbott said..."
Slapped forehead. This isn't about women's health. Duh. It's about punishing teenage girls who have sex by forcing them to have pregnancies* or abortions. (The federal govt also wants to make children's health records available to their parents, preventing many youngsters from discussing sexual health or contraception with their doctors. This will cost lives.) Sensible response from health worker: "The bigger question is how can sex education programs ensure there is no need for the morning after pill." Few thirteen year olds are mature enough or knowledgeable enough to make good decisions about sex - they need all the help and advice they can get before the (f)act. The government's attempt to keep kids ignorant and then punishing girls (and not boys) for that ignorance is transparent hypocrisy.
When a pharmacist sells the morning-after pill, not only should they be able to provide advice, but everyone buying it should be given a free booklet in their first language which includes a URL and well-staffed 1-800 number for further advice.
Oddly, there's no sign of a ban on liposuction on 15 year old girls - with their parents' consent.
* The morning-after pill mostly works by preventing ovulation, thus preventing conception. It can also work by preventing the egg from being moved to the uterus, also preventing conception; and by preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterine wall, preventing pregnancy. More info from PPFA.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-12 07:13 pm (UTC)I'd also like to know who's having unprotected sex with thirteen year old girls. I *hope* mostly it's thirteen year old boys, who are probably just as immature and ill-informed. But I have my doubts.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-13 07:14 am (UTC)I remember I saw a television program with twenty-something guys (I mean they were young, not there were lots of them) who had fathered children with girls in their (the girls') early teens, and shudderingly, below. Their opinion? They actually said: If someone was capable of articulating that they wanted sex, that meant they were informed enough to make that decision and it was up to them. (No, they really felt no responsibility for what they had done. And the girls didn't seem to be great examples of informed maturity either, come to that...)
Just...rrrg. Really.