A Teen to Obama on Emergency Contraception: Stop Patronizing Me


I’m at that age when so many adults just don’t get my life. While I often use this complaint too liberally, I find that the Obama administration’s attempts to restrict access to emergency contraception on the basis of age fail to recognize the true challenges and realities of being a teenager. Telling teenagers to fork over photo identification before accessing emergency contraception means they simply don’t “get” us and our real lives.

While I’ve jokingly griped and groaned over the age limits on buying lottery tickets and drinking alcohol, these are parameters that, honestly, I can live with. More life threatening is the age restriction pushed by the Obama administration for emergency contraception. Unveiled in late April, the plan made emergency contraception available over-the-counter only for people ages 15 and up.

On Wednesday, the administration lost that battle, in part, when the Food and Drug Administration was ordered to immediately make two-dose emergency contraception available over-the-counter without an age restriction. The administration is continuing to appeal age restrictions for one-dose emergency contraception, like Plan B One-Step.

Why would the Obama administration support such restrictions, which not only put the health and lives of young women at risk, but also further disable young women from taking control of our sexuality with the empowerment and liberation that many of us wish for?

Placing an age limit on emergency contraception is simply discrimination. For example, while the administration’s plan allows women age 15 and up to purchase emergency contraception, it says that a store clerk must first verify a woman’s age before she is allowed to buy the drug. For many but not all adults, proof of age is a non-issue if they have driver’s licenses or state-issued identification at the ready. But let’s be real: Many 15-year-olds, and for that matter women of all ages, do not have licenses, permits, or other forms of easily accessible government identification. In Maryland, where I live, teens can’t apply for a learner’s permit until they are 15 years and nine months old. If my own experience is any judge, I was late in getting my permit and then promptly lost it for a stretch of time. Under the rule the Obama administration wanted to impose, my mistake would require me to lug in a passport or a birth certificate to get completely safe and time-sensitive medicine. Digging through documents is not always practical when emergency contraception should be taken as soon as possible for maximum effectiveness.

The age restriction also fails to acknowledge that—spoiler alert—young people have sex. While only 13 percent of teens have had sex by age 15, that’s still more than one in ten teens who deserve the same protection and health-care services that women of other ages receive. If we continue to ignore the reality that young people can and will be sexual, we will have no choice but to contend with even more teens with children of their own.

Many young teenagers who have sex are painted by conservative political and religious rhetoric as misguided and troubled girls. But of the young women I know who had sex by age 15, most are happy teenagers who, just like many older adults, chose responsible partners and used appropriate birth control options. Sure, there are some 15-year-olds who have sex recklessly and irresponsibly, but aren’t there 45-year-olds who do the same?

These double standards highlight the sort of paternalistic government decisions that I am tired of. Emergency contraception age restrictions treat teens like we are either too dumb or too irresponsible to take care of our own bodies.

This disempowering trope is further reinforced by “abstinence is best” health classes that require women of a certain age to receive parental approval before accessing medically accurate information, and abortion laws that require parental intervention before accessing medically safe procedures. Our schools expect us to comprehend calculus and Shakespeare, yet reading the packaging on a box of pills or talking about sex in a mature, clinical way is too much for us to handle? Give me a break.

My teachers have always taught me that knowledge is power and that I should use all of the resources available to me. Fittingly, without adequate sex education and without appropriate access to birth control options, including emergency contraception, I don’t feel like I have the power to make the best and safest choices. While our schools and politicians focus so much attention on beefing up student’s math and reading skills to prepare us for the “real world,” many fail to give us the education and resources we need to maneuver in the very “real world” of sex and relationships. We are simply armed with a useless arsenal of flimsy sex education and restricted birth control options and somehow expected to just make it work.

The Obama administration fails to acknowledge that younger women are capable of making responsible decisions. This attitude only becomes more confusing when it is placed against the backdrop of coaches, parents, and teachers who are constantly pushing my peers and me to become leaders in our communities. It is baffling that when I was 12 years old parents allowed me to babysit their child, yet at an older age the government still thinks I am incapable of making responsible decisions regarding my own body.

The intent of the emergency contraception restrictions deserve even more scrutiny when examined in the context of other government action on youth safety issues. I don’t believe that the government is interested in the health of young women when flimsy governmental oversight places such few regulations on, for example, youth modeling, sometimes leading to sexual harassment and exploitation. When a young woman wants to protect her body, it is treated almost like a crime, but if an industry wants to capitalize on a young woman’s body—even if it risks a woman’s health—it is not only excused, its promoted.

No one should respect the Obama administration’s paternalistic and ageist attempts to restrict access to emergency contraception on the basis of age. This is a matter of life and death for teens. As a teen myself, I want to be able to go into relationships informed and with the tools I need to make healthy decisions. This should not be a big request. We all have the right to choose if and when we become parents—no matter our age.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • Arachne646

    This young woman’s essay makes a lot of sense. There’s no reason that these young people, who must deal with many things adults don’t, and would have trouble with, dealing with, on a daily basis, can’t take care of their own health and safety. They have that right, since they could seek out a health care provider if needed for this choice.

  • Brandy

    Well I don’t agree with the age limit either but bc pills should be the primary anyway and as far as worrying about alcohol and lottery already….well lol you just need to slow down there girlie. Obama is a father and I would think your own would agree with him.

    • belgianchic

      ‘well lol you just need to slow down there girlie’. talk about condescending, paternalistic, all the things she mentioned in her article. Are you honestly telling me that you and every single person you ever knew in your life had their first drink at age twenty one? no, what’s that? its not a shocker that underage people will drink, and as for the lottery, who cares? she was clear that’s not as important to her as her health and safety, which is what is being compromised her. the idea that since Obama is a father, his decisions are always what is right for girls is silly. Yes, he is a father but he is not a 14 or 15 year old girl in need of plan b. just because your father, or any father for that matter, it doesn’t matter if he’s the president, thinks something doesn’t mean that’s applicable to every person and that is how it should be.

      • Benjamin Conradie

        Her health and safety are not compromised. We are trying to teach her moral values by saying be a child and when you 15 then consider having sex. She is equating having sex with buying a lottery ticket. Well suppose it can be argued – having sex is like playing the lottery – some days you win some days you loose… I must remember next time when I buy a lottery ticket to ask for an insurance to get my money back if I loose…

        • Arekushieru

          Her health and safety WOULD be compromised if we followed your ‘should’.

          She is equating age restrictions on buying a lottery ticket with age restrictions on buying EC. Age restrictions on lottery or tobacco purchases are either harm-neutral or PREVENT harm. EC is something that PREVENTS harm. Therefore age restrictions CAUSE harm.

          Seriously, please do read, next time.

        • belgianchic

          her health and safety are absolutely being compromised. did you even read the article? denying women access to plan b compromises their health and safety. that’s precisely the problem. sexuality is not a moral value- that’s all there is to it. there’s nothing moral or immoral about having sex at whatever age, because sex is not a moral action.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Yes, sex is a moral action- moral within marriage (I mean ceremonial marriage approved by God, absolutely NOT legal marriage- so it is NOT different in different states or different countries, and it is NOT man/man or woman/woman)
            Under all other circumstances it is an immoral action.
            Get outta here with that decadent ultra-Calderonista Truth decay.

          • cjvg

            That is your personal religious conviction!
            I do not believe in your god(s) so I will not worship them.
            That is my right in a country that has freedom of religion, regardless of how much you do not like it!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            The personalizing, relativizing construct “your god(s)” and describing the Holy Lord of ALL as “them” (a plural word) is just wicked nonsense.

            I never said a thing about “countries” either. I am talking about God’s moral code, not what a particular government thinks. I am so against this sort of theocracy that if my country ever started persecuting people for NOT being Christian, then I would work *against* it even to the point of treason and I would do what I could to shelter people like you (provided you weren’t obnoxious and hateful about my Faith.)

            This is NOT about First Amendment rights, as I never suggested taking anyone’s First Amendment rights away from them. Government cannot force anyone to truly believe in God and should not try to. My point is about MORALITY.

          • colleen2

            I think your ego is so huge that you fail to recognize that we do not view you as a moral authority. When you talk about ‘God’s moral code’ you are speaking of your beliefs. Your posts here are a daily witness to those beliefs and I am not impressed.

            Please spare us the examples of your possible moral courage in the future.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, I am NOT speaking of “my” beliefs as a purely personal thing… and I will NOT “spare” you the detail of my commitment to religious freedom. My freedom of speech allows me to say that I would help to protect freedom of religion even if the State grew hostile to it, and obey Jesus by showing love for even my spiritual enemies and refusing to render God’s things to Caesar (while rendering Caesar’s things to him). I am not spared radical hate for sharing Christ online and someone like you who mocks my doing that has no standing to make me “spare her” from anything .If you don’t like my comments don’t read them.

          • Nor

            Doesn’t it just burn you up that you can’t make your religious beliefs into laws to impose upon the rest of us just because you happen to live in a secular country (founded as secular because it’s original inhabitants had to run away in order to escape religious persecution)? Man, so frustrating! I bet telling us we’re all awful people has converted many an internet opponent though, right? What are your numbers on that? How effective are you at converting us Satan liberal types?

          • HeilMary1

            Your pious “tolerance” for other religious beliefs sounds so much like livid intolerance itching for a pretext to arrest us “heathens”.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “Livid”? Why the hyperbole all the time? I speak of love and you claim hate. I speak of my tolerance, but because I will not give you AGREEMENT and APPROVAL and totally compromise Truth just for the sake of those who reject it, you call me INtolerant! You’re playing the opposites game! I say I don’t want the State involved in enforcing faith, you mention “arrests”. I say that you’re wrong but you have and should continue to have the legal right to believe and speak in whichever way you wish- the fact that Christians are still being persecuted by civil government in dozens of lands today because the rulers try to enforce such restrictions is perfectly sufficient evidence for me to reach this conclusion. You twist that into “intolerance”… and of the fiery “livid” variety. You are beyond reasonable discussion.

          • HeilMary1

            You are an intolerant pompous bigot bursting with rage to arrest all non-Christians, including your own relatives, and you selfishly ignore the millions of non-Christians brutally murdered by your crusading death cult. You claim you support civil freedom of religion, but your HATEFUL intolerance reveals otherwise.

          • Nor

            Doesn’t telling everyone else they’ll go to Hell because they don’t agree with you = hate?

          • canaduck

            “The personalizing, relativizing construct “your god(s)” and describing the Holy Lord of ALL as “them” (a plural word) is just wicked nonsense.”

            What is your continued issue here? cjvg apparently isn’t religious and therefore it would be totally inane, from a logical standpoint, for her(?) to refer to your god as just plain “God”. I know you BELIEVE that your God is everybody’s god (and I’m using lowercase letters here not out of disrespect but because that’s how the language works–”god” is a noun and “God” is a name) and that’s fine. The fact is that every monotheistic religion refers to their god as “God”. It’s completely absurd for you to expect everybody else to pretend that they see your god as their god in order to validate your personal religious beliefs–NO MATTER HOW TRUE YOU THINK THEY ARE. Would you be this angry if a Sikh person came along and mentioned your god without a capital letter? Sikhs have a different god who they worship with all the fervency that you do yours–and what do you know, their god is known as “God” too.

            Seriously, you keep harping about this and I don’t understand it. What exactly do you want people to say?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Let me get this straight one last time.
            I am an EXCLUSIVIST Christian. EXclusivist. Not an interfaith, multifaith diversitarian who believes in different equally-valid “my god, your god, their god” paths to Perfection. This is why I walked out when an Easter Saturday service included a Unitarian, a rabbi and a Muslim (or something like that): I have a duty of Christian ecclesiastical separation, which means keeping out of “unequal yoke” with false teachers and idolaters.

            I am **NOT** a pluralist in the religious sense and you will **NOT** make me into one. I support CIVIC pluralism (equal legal rights for people of all faiths) and the rights of everyone to practise their faith even if it IS a wicked form of paganism and sheer idolatry. But I believe that this counterfeit spirituality is qualitatively different to worship of God, Who is Father, Son and Spirit. I believe there is NO such thing as “the Christian god” who is the “god” (little g) of only Christians. There is simply God, and He is Lord of ALL. ALL authority is given Him. The FULLNESS of the Earth is the Lord’s. God will judge those who personally believe in Him AND those who deny Him.

            Sikhs actually DO NOT just “have” a “different god” to me. This is an absurdity: God is not just a concept that can be “had” or not “had”, He is the Alpha and Omega! They are idolaters who worship a being that does NOT exist and the only way they can please God is to convert to Christianity. If a Sikh who was aware of the Gospel and rejected it for their pagan false faith mentioned God without a capital letter then yes, I would find this offensive; anyone who disrespects the One Lord in service of idols is liable to offend me. However, there are many things in this world that offend pro-family Christians: one cannot fight all of them and the Christian life should not be conceptualized as an endless negative war when doing positive good is thus decentered.

            I believe the Bible is a book inspired by God unlike Vedas,the BG, Qu’ran, Talmud, Confucian materials, animist texts &c. The Bible is not “my” “personal” book, but God’s book and God is not “my” “personal” anything but the One who loved all of us so much He died on a Cross in the Person of His Son and shed blood for our salvation from eternal death, the wages of sin.

            This is all I really have to say on this matter. I am NOT about to compromise my exclusivist Faith by approving the use of personal pronouns and lower-case G in speaking of the only God. I cannot *stop* people using this construction, but I reserve the right to be offended at it. In the same way, I choose to reject the godless talk of “common eras” and unapologetically use AD and BC. We are in the Year of the Lord of all humankind no matter what “members of a multicultural society” might think; they are free to deny that this is the Year of Our Lord all they like, but they will not be right.

          • canaduck

            No matter how absolutely solid and positive you are about every aspect of your belief system–and even if it turns out that you’ve been completely and entirely right all along–you do not get to demand that other people censor themselves by abandoning the rules of both logic and language. (I would actually assume that you’d leave that sort of thing up to God.) This is the part that you don’t seem to understand.

            However, you have every right to be offended. We all do. You even have the right to throw a tantrum everytime you’re offended. I just don’t get why you’re here. Did you want to have a debate about teens and EC or did you want to call people out constantly for something that’s not directly relevant to the conversation and that nobody has any intention of changing? Why can’t you just say, “I find it very offensive when you disrespect God by…” and then move on with the discussion, accepting that sometimes, people are going to ignore you?

          • HeilMary1

            So your own “pagan” Jewish and Muslim parents are going to hell? How fascist and anti-Christian of you!

          • cjvg

            And I unabashedly reserve the right not to believe in your god or your religious books.

            In fact your exact rant can be copied and used by every single religion out there, they ALL feel like you do about their god.

            I’m not impressed, and like you (!) I will not compromise my believes for even a single one of them!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            The difference is “their god” as you describe their non-existent idol as will not save them. God will save me and damn people like you for refusing to accept Him and dishonouring His Word.

          • cjvg

            “These” people feel the exact same way about you and your false god.
            Why should you be the one in the right, their god tells them you are the one who is damned and their god is just as real and speaks just as loudly to them as you claim yours does!

            Personally I do not care one way or another.
            The only thing I care about in these situations is that neither of you have the right to try to force your religious dogma carefully disguised as so called accepted morality, onto the rest of society.
            You and those like you have no right to use legislation to force your religious believes (in the form of laws) restricting how others are able to live!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I am not trying to force “my” religious “dogma” on anyone- advocating for people to repent and change isn’t forcing. And God is not false so the people who feel that way are plain wrong.

            And no, “their god”- an idol- is NOT just as real as the One who shed His blood at Calvary. Nice try.

          • HeilMary1

            You most definitely are forcing your fascist falsehoods on everyone who even slightly disagrees with you.

          • justalison

            Jonathan, not sure whether you realise this, but your bible includes the Talmud and the Qu’ran includes your bible: all three run along the one timeline with various religions branching off. And remember, too, that the bible is not one book: it’s a collection of smaller texts that were separated from what was a larger document in 325. Look up “council of Nicea” and you’ll find that a council of bishops decided what was to go in and what was to be left out.

          • Nor

            So Allah is God?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ahh, but then which brand of Christianity? Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal, Non-denominational, Church of God, Orthodox, Catholic, Calvinist? Quaker? Do you believe in full immersion baptism? Speaking in tongues? The Trinity? Saturday or Sunday Sabbath? Do you celebrate holidays? Predestination? Should women wear head coverings in church? Are women allowed to preach or speak in church? Should instruments be played in church? I hope you don’t think me nosy, but even among Christians there are disputes regarding who is a ‘true’ Christian and who is not.

          • cjvg

            But you would like to pass laws based on your religious convictions, that is hardly separation of church and state!

            Thanks, but no thanks for sheltering “people like me” providing I was not to “obnoxious” in my not believing in your god!

            I would rather not compromise my personal believes to receive your “shelter” (very Christian to set faith adherence/observance rules to “earn” your shelter)

            You know what would be really helpful,
            not passing laws based solely on your religious convictions!
            Stop insisting that we all belong to your god
            Start respecting others believes, even if they are not yours

            By the way, it is not bragging, it is a plain as day observance that you despise, disrespect and arrogantly dismiss every single opinion that is not exactly in line with your religious views as irrelevant!

            In fact you really must read your bible again since your arrogance and rudeness are so far removed from the humble and respectful behavior your jesus displays for those who are not of his faith!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            There is no such thing as “my god” with a lower-case “g”. Matthew 25 is being taken way out of context. You are preaching the hellbound damnable heresy called “works-based salvation”- we had a whole Reformation to crush your Satanic view based on taking Christ’s words out of context to deny the Truth, which is that He will condemn ALL of us based on our own works, but those who have FAITH in Him will be saved by faith alone (sola fide) as His righteousness will be imputed. This is why you MUST be born again to see Heaven and why your inclusivist filth is of the devil.

          • cjvg

            So the bible is ONLY the word of god if it follows your exact personal believes.
            I always thought the word of your god was infallible and the guideline of your behavior.

            But apparently in your case gods word and his book conveying his word is wrong when it is not in agreement with your personal wants and believes!

            I dare say, your sins are worse then mine.
            I do not follow your god and have pledged no obedience to him, you however did so but willfully and arrogantly dismiss his word as wrong when it conflicts with your wants!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            No, I am not “DISMISSING” the parts of Scripture (God’s Word, NOT the word of “MY” anything, let alone a lower-casey “god”) which appear to speak of judgment by works, only placing them in the wider context afforded by the Epistles and other sayings in the Gospels to conclude in line with standard evangelical doctrine that the ultimate basis of eternal life will be by faith. I would far rather go with the view of thousands of Spirit-filled Bible-believing born again Christians than a blaspheming carnal unrepentant sinner like you who cannot comprehend what is spiritually appraised.

            One last thing: I will NEVER, EVER respond to you again. I gave you fair warning about the combo of personal pronoun and lowercase g and you are STILL using it. So you are NOT deserving of any further response from me with your blatant disrespect of the Holy **G**od who rules EVERYONE including you and all atheists, agnostics, pagans, heathens, misbelievers, idolaters, etc. Find another person to talk to who is willing to put up with repetitious use of “your god” (sic) and similar phrases because I AM NOT.

            Goodbye.

          • cjvg

            Well thank you for your answer!
            You have been exceptionally clear in what youi actually believe!

            It is crystal clear that your gods word is only what YOU approve it is!
            If you do not like what he /she has to say you will dismiss that part of your gods bible as not actually his word or not what he meant to say!

            Why don’t you just write your own bible and only include the parts you agree with?!

          • HeilMary1

            Why you pompous, self-important, spoiled, hypocritical, misogynist, theocratic anti-Christian heretic! Please take all your childish marbles and go home while we adults discuss adult topics that fly over your toddler tantrums.

          • Nor

            What if someone fails to capitalize God in verbal conversation? Does that mean you won’t talk to them either? Wow, this evangelism is sub par if all you have to do is write “god” to cause the Speaker of the Only Truth Going to throw up his hands in a tizzy. Here I am expecting the meager tenacity of a door to door Mormon in no way homo-erotic boy couple, or at the very least a Jehovah’s Witness. At least they bring you presents. So disappointed.

          • HeilMary1

            You definitely are one scary, dangerous mental patient!

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Hey anti-Catholic fanatic and slander-mongering liar, I am not dangerous to anyone. I am a peaceful person who just has strong religious beliefs. Not some sort of terrorist. Also, I am not insane, Dr.Heil.

          • HeilMary1

            You are the lying, slandering anti-human rights insane fanatic here who has betrayed your own parents by joining the genocide cult that murdered millions of Jews and Muslims throughout its blood-drenched history. I had my skin burned off by your terrorist Catholic cult so I do have a human duty to warn everyone about its dangers.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You really have to love this idea of stating your opinion as unequivocal fact. Does it work for everything? Let me have a go:

            1. The most handsome man alive is Bruce Boxleitner. The most handsome man not alive is Cary Grant.

            2. The best team ever is the Washington Redskins.

            3. The best movie in the world is Withnail and I

            4. The best vegetable is the brussel sprout.

            5. The best classical piece is Elgar’s Cello Concerto.

            6. The best group ever is Madness. Or ABBA. Or Madness.

            7. The best mystery show is Scarecrow and Mrs. King

            8. The best American sitcom is Designing Women. The best British sitcom is As Time Goes By.

            9. Best Sci-fi is Doctor Who..

            10. Best mystery author is Agatha Christie.

            11. Everything Stephen J. Cannell ever wrote or produced is sheer genius. Everything. Even Renegade.

            12. Eric Idle is the best Monty Python member.

            13. After praying one must do the macarena ten times.

            Every fact I have stated here is the TRUTH (note the all-caps so that you know it’s extra-truthy) And if you don’t believe me or have a different opinion that you are a lost soul who is hopelessly DOOMED (again, all-caps truthy).

            -Jennifer *who is not now nor ever intended to be a factual statement* :)

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            There is a difference between personal tastes in entertainment, leisure, food and fashion to the Living God vs. idols! Apples & oranges.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It all comes down to a matter of opinion. You may like to think of your religious opinions as facts, but you also need to accept that others may not believe the same things.

          • canaduck

            You have *OFFENDED* me deeply. No matter what you believe, there is ONE TRUE REALITY and that is that Kale is the *SUPERIOR* Vegetable although I will acknowledge that brussel sprouts can also be quite DELICIOUS when prepared *properly*, so saith the Canaduck.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’ve inspired me–going to make kale tonight to go with my salmon:)

          • cjvg

            Kale with salmon?
            Interesting.

          • cjvg

            Wait, we get to choose out of 3 different groups for number 6?
            Is that not anathema?
            By the way I agree on the Brussel sprouts (except those in Florida, those are horrendous)

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, changed my mind it’s ABBA. I mean, all those capital letters–how could I resist?

          • Nor

            God is cool with abortions. He says nothing against them, and there’s a recipe in the Bible for causing one, so it seems like he’s pro-choice. Also, he does kill a lot of babies, a number of times. So it seems he’s cool with killing in general. Thoughts?

          • belgianchic

            hahahahahahaha stop being ridiculous. sex is not an immoral or moral action. it just is. its just sex. the very fact that you invoked God in your little speech shows how silly you are being, because religion is NOT the same as morality. there is absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex, gay marriage, or homosexuality. there is nothing immoral about any of these. your personal religious beliefs do not make anything else immoral. religion does not define morality.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            hahaha stop being ridiculous. yes, premarital sex is wrong and so is tribadism and also sodomy. God DOES indeed determine morality. the Bible is not “personal”- I didn’t write it. YOUR personal libertine sexual experimentalist beliefs do not make anything moral. Godless ultraliberal relativists (AND governments- they decide what’s legal but can never determinewhat’s moral) do not define morality.

          • belgianchic

            premarital sex is NOT wrong. there is nothing wrong with waiting until marriage if that is your personal choice for whatever reasons, but it in no way reflects your morality. i have no idea what tribadism is but sodomy is not wrong either- plenty of couples have sex that are not vaginal, and the sky hasn’t fallen in. if you don’t like it, don’t do it. there’s nothing wrong with it. god does NOT determine morality, plenty of people don’t believe in God or the same god, and they all have the same capacity to morality as anybody else. yes, you didn’t write the bible, and neither did ‘God’. men wrote it, and its not law. you’re psychotic haha.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Actually, no matter what some liberal elitist pervert-sympathizers say, no-one has any capacity to morality except born again Christians because we are all hopelessly lost sinners. The Bible is God’s Word and if you deny it you will answer to Him at the Last Day. Your views on morality are just your personal FALSE suppositions, I have Holy Truth on my side.

            And kindly shut the fuck up calling me “psychotic”… ignorant asshole.

          • belgianchic

            liberal? yes. elitist? hardly. pervert-sympathizer? there’s nothing perverted about sexuality, so let’s try that one again.

            EVERYBODY has the capacity to be moral. born again christians, hasidic jews, shia muslims, atheists, catholics, wiccans, buddhists, hindus, republicans, democrats, americans, canadians, australians, egyptians, men, women, transgendered people, straight, gay, bi, married, single, prostitute, lawyer, zoologist, all of those people could be moral individuals, and there are moral individuals in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those categories.your religion does not make you a better person than anybody else, so kindly shut the fuck up and grow the fuck up and stop being so psychotic about your faith.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I am not saying I am a better person, only that God has given me the ability to see Truth because I accepted His Son, Jesus Christ, as Savior. I am not a “supremacist” of any sort- just a pro-Family Bible believing Christians. And much of the sexual behaviour you approve of IS perverted according to Almighty God (who I trust over Kinsey, Masters & Johnson, ACLU, porn studios, etc.) so let’s NOT try that one again….

          • belgianchic

            your truth is not everybody’s truth. christianity is not the end all be all of human existence, and its ridiculous to pretend otherwise. you’re pro-family? congratulations, so is everybody else on the planet. you are a christian supremacist, that is exactly what you are. there is nothing perverted about sexual behavior or sexuality. I don’t give a flying fuck what your ‘Almighty God’ approves of because i don’t even believe in god. QED i don’t care. what i DO care about is making sure everyone is respected and nobody’s sexual choices are ridiculed. also there’s nothing wrong with porn.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            actually a lot of people are anti-family. You are anti-family if you support abortion, the homosexual agenda, explicit sex education, dirty books in schools, radical feminism, the sex industry, moral relativism, values clarification, single motherhood, no-fault divorce or the “family diversity” perversion. 95% of people in my country are anti-family. I, on the other hand, am PRO-family. I am one of God’s remnant and I am proud to be that way. God damn your relativist “your truth, my truth” worldview. It is of the Devil.
            There is no such thing as “my truth”, there is just ABSOLUTE Truth which is found in the Holy Bible. QED. Furthermore, God DOES care about your blasphemous hate of Him and your sacrilegious disrespect for His holy commands. He isn’t “my” anything- He is everyone’s God. Full stop. Oh and I **WILL** ridicule all sexual choices apart from abstinence or faithful marriage to a person of the opposite sex because they are sin. I have the right to ridicule you free-love advocates and lewd perverted Jezebels. I will ridicule sodomites, sapphites, harlots, feminist radicals and Godless scum all I like. Did you hear that? I **WILL** ridicule your FALSE views and your wrong sexual choices and there’s no way you will stop me.

          • belgianchic

            wow, you are so offensive that you make me fear for humanity. i am most certainly not anti-family, i am very for families everywhere and i love my own family and consider families to be a cornerstone of society. however, i am pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-sex ed, a feminist, i have no problem with single motherhood or divorce or diversity or letting kids read what they want. huh. all of those are NOT evil. lets take a closer look!

            you are absolutely not anti-family if you support abortion rights and abortion access, which is what it means to be pro-choice, supporting legalized abortion as a fundamental human right. supporting abortion rights supports families and allows women to plan their own families and fertility and exercise their reproductive choices.

            the homosexual agenda of tolerance, equality, compassion, respect, and so on are absolutely values that i would like my family to learn and emulate in their own lives, and to accept that people have different sexual orientations and all are equal and should be treated with respect and equality.

            children have a right to comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and parenthood discussed. abstinence-only sex education hurts children everywhere and is the main reason for so many unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

            dirty books in schools? i’m not for censorship, but i am with you on that some books need to be age-appropriate. high school students can handle a lot more than ten year olds can.

            if by radical feminism you mean the notion that women are better than men, then no, i do not adhere to htat because i believe the sexes are equal. but i am a feminist and a very staunch one, something i am very proud of.

            the sex industry is iffy, because many women are forced into prostitution, but i respect the right of every woman to do what she wants to do with her body.

            moral relativism?morality is kind of relative, but some things are universal, such as human dignity and respect and equality.

            values should always be clarified, because things that are touted as so-called values, such as discrimination, are not actually values at all.
            single motherhood? there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. many women have children on their own, and so do men. it in no way makes them bad people or bad parents. women are often widowed and divorce makes single parent families common, along with couples who are never married having children. none of those are bad for society or bad for families.
            no fault divorce has been a tenet of progressive society, because it allows individuals to escape from marriages they do no longer want to be in. nobody wants to be divorced, but it should always be an option. there’s nothign wrong or shameful about it.

            your next few sentences are kind of absurd and actually made me laugh hysterically, so thanks for that, i needed that. it’s for the devil? i don’t believe in the devil, but if being progressive and feminist makes me for the devil, sign me up. i’ll throw a party.

            see, thinking you and you alone have ABSOLUTE TRUTH is incredibly arrogant. there are many religious texts in the world, such as the bible, the torah, the koran, the bhavagata gita, and so on, and none of those are absolute truth but rather individual truths for people of those faiths. you don’t know it all.
            he is not my god, i do not follow him, i do not worship her, i do not believe gods exist.

            all choices outside of abstinence or faithful heterosexual marriage is sin? hahahahhahahahahahha you really are insane. choices are for individuals to make. don’t make specific choices if you don’t want to, but sexual orientation is NOT a choice and there’s nothing wrong with any sexual orientation or however you express yourself.
            you absolutely have the right to ridicule people because of your absurd beliefs, but i also have the right to ridicule your condescenion, arrogance, and just plain stupidity.
            my sexual choices are my own, and there is nothing wrong about them.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Well God owns ALL our bodies (not just females, before you think me sexist!) and He will judge us for our sexual choices if they defy Him. It is liberal elite supremacists who condescend and are foolish. I am not arrogant. You may go ahead and ridicule me- as you said, you have the right to. But I will continue to speak out against you and your type as morally wrong and preach the only true saving Gospel.

          • belgianchic

            nobody owns my body except for me, period. that’s it. i have ultimate control over my own body. i don’t care about an imaginary deity judging me for my sexuality, because i don’t beleive in it at all.

            the only supremacists in this conversation is christians like you, who seem to think they own the world and can tell everybody else how to live their lives. my type, as morally wrong? sure, i’m not perfect, but i’m a lot closer than you are. their is not only one truth. there are many, and being religious doesn’t make you a better person than anybody else.

            you’re offensive to rational thinking people, which automatically disqualifies anyone who thinks like you do, unfortunately. do you think christians are persecuted? excuse me while i go laugh hysterically. christians are privileged everywhere in the western world. try being gay, or muslim, or an atheist, or transgender, and then we can talk about persecution.

            oh, so equality and diversity are corrupt now? weird, who knew, those to me are excellent traits to have and virtues to fight for. there ARE many equally valid routes in people’s lives, and religion does not determine whether or not you are a good person. at all. get off your high horse and deal with it. marriage equality is not a perversion of marriage, but rather an extension of it to loving gay and lesbian couples who want to participate in the institution. secular humanism is an excellent way to live! but i would not dare to say it is the best or the only, but that it is the way that is best for ME.

            you are so ridiculous its laughable. also, what on earth are you doing on a site like this, that clearly likes things like equality and diversity, things that you abhor? just wondering.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I go to sites controlled by militant liberals, sodomites, baby-killers, the godless rabble and Christophobes who deny the supremacy and absolute authority of Scripture to correct some of their assumptions and provide Truth in a sea of lies. There is only one valid way- and it’s through God. Not some “imaginary deity” and rebels like you will one day be brought under submission by Him.

          • HeilMary1

            Mother-killing fetal idolater, if you’ve served any abortifacient coffee, tea or holy wine to any fertile women, you’ve committed abortions yourself!

          • belgianchic

            liberals, yes. sodomites? probably some of us, because we don’t generally have a problem with any other kind of sex beside vaginal, so oral and anal (ie sodomy) aren’t exactly problematic. baby killers? not in the slightest. abortion does not kill babies. godless? maybe me, but there are others on this site and liberals who are very faith filled. Hahahaa your imaginary deity probably doesn’t care AT ALL about progressives who like equality and diversity.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For someone who claims to go to sites where there are going to be people who criticize you, you seem to be awfully thin-skinned about any criticism of you or your faith. Additionally, I’m wondering what you see as God’s position on profanity, since I seem to recall that He’s not exactly in favor of it. And yet the longer you go on here the more profane you seem to become.

          • Nor

            Well, I can’t tell you how much we all appreciate your selflessness. How’s that going in the real world? Doing any actual good at all out there, or just ranting at people who are never going to agree with you and giving your faith a bad name on the internet?

          • HeilMary1

            You are simply a psychotic anti-Christ Fred Phelps wannabe, probably with an undiagnosed intersex syndrome like XXY Klinefelter Syndrome and if you are “married”, you are technically in a same-sex marriage yourself.

          • Nor

            Are you allowed to masturbate? I think it might help with the angst you seem to feel, and this paranoid feeling of being attacked on all sides.

          • Guest

            “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
            The Bible says to leave judgment to God, remember? Jesus also said to love our neighbours as ourselves. Please keep those things in mind as you continue your tirade with lots of all-caps. Which is more important, to yell at people for what you interpret as wrong according to the Bible, or to express acceptance and love for everyone, even if you don’t like them or agree with them? You’re making Christians look bad.

          • canaduck

            Your comment is great! I just wanted to clear up a misconception: radical feminists do not believe that women are even remotely better better than men (or vice versa, obviously). “Radical” just means “to the root”, so radical feminists are those who believe that sexism (and racism, classism, etc) is so deeply entrenched that we need to start at the roots of it all to combat it–basically, that culture as it exists now is built entirely upon an exploitative hierarchical system, and that we need to work for a complete overhaul.

          • belgianchic

            Thanks! and thanks for the clarification– some people are confused about radical feminism and there seems to be a definition that is that radical feminists want to be superior to men. not anywhere close to your definition and what normal people work with haha!

          • Jennifer Starr

            What does ‘support for single motherhood’ entail exactly? If I support my friend whose louse of a husband left her and watch her two wonderful kids so she can work and put herself through nursing school (she’s now a RN, incidentally), does that put me in the wrong somehow? Or are you one of those people who thinks that if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock that she should be forced to give it up for adoption? Forgive me for being obtuse but I’m confused by this. (And if you could also explain the ‘family diversity’ thing while you’re at it, I’d be very grateful)

          • Jennifer Starr

            Would a book featuring rape and murder qualify as a dirty book?

          • belgianchic

            not to be weird, but i love this. not the rape-and-murder part, obviously.

          • HeilMary1

            You are one hateful anti-Christ Nazi fascist. You clearly hate God/Goddess because he/she creates all of us as varying degrees of intersexed. You’re intersexed too, you ignorant bigot.

          • canaduck

            “I **WILL** ridicule your FALSE views and your wrong sexual choices and there’s no way you will stop me.”

            Ohhh noooooooooooooooo

            :((((

          • Nor

            You are anti-family if you are anti-women.

          • Nor

            If it’s perverted, why do the animals get to do it? Aren’t they without sin?

          • Nor

            Why do you even talk to anyone who isn’t a born again Christian if we are all Satan spawn, and stupid Satan spawn at that? And no, you aren’t psychotic, just in a small and shrinking cult. Do you tell the other Christians they are going to hell too? Pretty cold dude. And you seem awfully defensive and insecure for being the only one with Holy Trust on your side, btw. Relax! If you are right, and everyone else is wrong, you get Heaven all to yourself! Sure, the sex will suck, but everyone will have very clean sparkly genitals, I’m sure.

          • HeilMary1

            YOUR God made us all varying degrees of intersexed, so you are the anti-God, anti-Christ heretic in this discussion, you fascist hatemonger.

          • Nor

            Sodomy would really fix that abortion problem you seem so upset about though. Saddlebacking for everyone!

            And don’t worry too much – everyone in your conservative community has done something rather sexually shocking at some point or another, I assure you. Read the Kinsey report sometime – it’s from the 1940′s so I’m sure it can’t be that upsetting to your belief system.

          • HeilMary1

            Have you had your gender purity medically tested? You could be an undiagnosed shemale with XXY Klinefelter Syndrome, in which case, marriage to “either” sex would be SAME-SEX. If God/Goddess disapproved of same sex attractions, he/she wouldn’t have made the dozens of known intersex conditions so prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. Your Nazi colors are showing.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            If you look up my history you will find ANTI-RACIST comments. Extended, heartfelt ones because my father is a Jew married to a Muslim, my mother grew up in one of the most diverse environments in the western world, and the park I kicked a soccer ball around as a six-year-old was the site of the sickening race-hate murder of one of the few Black youths in the area when I was 11.

            So do not insult me with this Nazi nonsense. ANTI=FASCISM :)

          • HeilMary1

            My childbirth-ruined Catholic extremist mom chemically burned all my skin off when I was in first grade as her permanent “holy abstinence” excuse. She was badgered to do this by a priest who was banging all the Orioles’ wives. She unsuccessfully bullied dermatologists to also amputate my arms to win more pity from that priest. She also tried to shave my head because “that’s what happened to Jews in concentration camps”. Her plan for overpopulated India was to separate husbands and wives into separate concentration camps to impose holy Catholic abstinence. Luckily for them, as a Baltimore house shrew, she had no shot of being elected to anything in India, although “Mother” Teresa did take a nasty crack at punishing the marital sex lives and heads (head shaving) of India’s poor.

            My being involuntarily disfigured for your disgusting abstinence idolatry is why I now fight fascist abstinence idolaters (who like pedophile priests and adulterous GOP gay bashers, exempt themselves from abstinence or fidelity to current wives).

            Abstinence is no magic bullet for society’s ills. For women, it means we inherited ugly faces or acquired disfigurement from domestic abuse, environmental pollution, or GOP religious cleansing wars.

          • Nor

            So your parents are going to hell? Rough. I sure hope you tell them as often as you tell us. Otherwise it would look like you love us more than you love them.

        • canaduck

          I know that whenever I think “moral values”, I think of adult men who believe that teenage girls deserve a a permanent, life-changing punishment for making a decision he doesn’t agree with.

          • cjvg

            Ah, there is the appropriate response he was hoping for!
            Just imagine the horror if you could not identify those sluts anymore?!

            Like he stated;
            “I do question why we need to change the law for 13% of the teen population so that they can continue to have sex without consequences.”
            (cause there should never be sex without consequences for female children, why society as we know it would collapse)

            Or ” to change a whole society for 13% of teens… get a grip”
            (cause society should not care about teen pregnancy if it only affects 13% of female teens)

            Or “society needs to draw a line in the sand. That line says you can receive EC when you are 15.”
            (yes, it is clearly better for society and girls younger then 15 if they get pregnant when they have sex)

            Or “do we give a person under the age of 15 the right to make a decision that could fundamentally change their lives.”
            (of course we don’t because teen parenthood will not change a teens life or the rest of the family and society not in the least)

      • Brandy

        I actually didn’t drink until I was 21 and I wasn’t even interested in alcohol after I tried it. Not even one breaks the rules and not everyone feels the need to have sex at 15 or try drugs. “Everyone is doing it” just isn’t the truth and while you pick pieces out of what I said to try and make your point lol why don’t you read the beginning again and then you will realize you don’t have one. Some people just like to argue for no reason.

        • belgianchic

          i don’t particularly care about your drinking habits- but i do care about how you seem to think you are better than other people who make different choices. choosing to have a drink at age 18 is not indicative of your moral character, the same way as engaging in sexual activity as a teenager does not show how good or bad of a person you are. of course ‘not everyone is doing it’, but the point is there is nothing WRONG with drinking alcohol in moderation and if you are not driving, and there is nothing WRONG with having sex as a teen.

          • Brandy

            I don’t “seem”nothing, you assume too much and when you asked “Are you honestly telling me that you and every single person you ever knew in your life had their first drink at age twenty one?” I answered your question. I didn’t say anything is wrong with her choices and actually agreed there should be no age limit on getting an emergency birth control pill and that taking contraception should be a priority first. Understanding were Obama is coming from doesn’t mean I agree. I am in no way better or different than this young lady who obviously has a good head on her shoulders.

        • canaduck

          …superiority complex aside, what’s with the pseudo-HTML?

          • Brandy

            Answering a question is a superiority complex? lol Learn something new everyday.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Ultra-liberals like many of the contributors to this forum are driven by their belief in wrapping a security blanket of nonjudgment around people and their “choices”. The moment you dare to question if choices are equally valid, or say that one form of behaviour is morally right and others are (gasp!) wrong, you will be accused of “superiority”. Just ignore it- I’m a Christian Dominionist and I have learnt to ignore stupid claims such as this one and the “self righteous” line, which ignores the fact that conservative Christians accept they cannot be righteous in themselves but are saved through imputation of Jesus Christ’s sinless life upon coming to faith.

          • Brandy

            Johnathan I see exactly what you mean and I’m a liberal! How quick they are to defend underage drinking and teen sex! hahahaaa! I can’t believe how petty and intolerant these people are being of different views. It’s an eye opener for sure.

          • Nor

            I don’t see how anyone pro-choice is an ultra liberal. Most people who aren’t conservative religious types are pro-choice. And a lot of people who are conservative religious types are pro-choice too. They just don’t know it because no one has asked them the question clearly enough for them to differentiate their own personal beliefs from what their church tells them they believe.

        • cjvg

          So for you following an arbitrary drinking rule equates to being a good moral person?
          The drinking age used to be 18 here in America, also American teens and soldiers who are stationed in Germany or the Netherlands for instance can legally drink at 16 in those countries.

          Does this make them immoral in your opinion, after all they are not following American drinking law?
          Were the Americans who drank at 18 immoral when that was the law Immoral?
          Why not, they are not following your guidance, and why would it be a moral law in the first place if the age limit can be so arbitrarily moved about?!

          What exactly makes you the authority on moral behavior for all your peers?
          And why do you believe dismissing those who have a different opinion then you with a disrespectful demeaning and belittling “well lol you just need to slow down there girlie” is moral behavior?!

          • Brandy

            Why do you like arguing with people who have a different opinion than you equates to being a good moral person? On what authority or right do you have to belittle and demean my opinion? Your logic is twisted and STUPID.

          • canaduck

            Um, I think you were the one who showed up first and posted an opinion contrary to that stated in the article. If you don’t want people to disagree with you, you probably should just avoid starting arguments.

          • Guest

            Man I’m not going to read your book. You are looking to argue just because you don’t agree with me. Oh WELL. You would have spent your time better talking to the wall cause frankly it’s gettin old. Good luck.

          • canaduck

            I was responding to Brandy, who left a reasonably nice response. Not sure who you are but you are more than welcome to avoid reading a comment that wasn’t directed at you.

          • Brandy

            I made a joke on her joke and got stampeded on it that’s why you didn’t notice I agreed with her and I have got more judgement than I even “came off” which I wasn’t in the first place. Oh well when people look to be offended they will be. Take care.

          • cjvg

            Irony does escape you does it not?1

            I’m merely pointing out to you that your self proclaimed morality and “i’m a good person because I did not drink until the rules said I could” is based on something completely arbitrary and irrelevant.

            It most certainly does not qualify you as the moral authority that your dismissive put down (“well lol you just need to slow down there girlie”) of the essay writer was conveying !

            A public forum is were people respond and remark on the opinions that others post or state their own opinion.

            Most do so without resorting to put downs and belittlements, you however resorted to belittlement to make a point that you could have easily made without doing so!

            When you are called out on that you resort to pouting and display of hurt feelings that others dare to take offense, that others dare to comment, that others dare to not be amused and will say so.

            I did not insult you, I did not belittle you, or used some put down as an aid meaning to dismiss your opinion as irrelevant.
            I used logic and rules (I guess that makes me mean and twisted and also an adult) to point out that your have no reason to hold yourself out as the moral authority!

            You might be a little to immature to use public forums as of yet.
            If you can not deal with people pointing out the inconsistencies and plain rudeness of your remarks do not post on a public forum!

          • Guest

            Your first paragraph tells me I would waste my time reading the rest of your crap. lol How you gonna quote something I didn’t even say!!!! Hahaam done. I’ I’m not going to read the rest of your garbage, you clearly are argumentative and have a boring life.

          • cjvg

            Sad, can’t defend your own statements and don’t have the backbone to say so!
            You have to do better then making some inane personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously!

          • Brandy

            Your first paragraph tells me I would waste my time reading the rest of your crap. lol How you gonna quote something I didn’t even say!!!! Hahaa I’m done. I’m not going to read the rest of your garbage, you clearly are argumentative and have a boring life. GROW UP!

          • cjvg

            I guess I should also include with a short term memory defect.
            Read your own writing and you will see what you are in actuality implying!

          • Brandy

            Your first paragraph tells me I would waste my time reading the rest of your crap. lol How you gonna quote something I didn’t even say!!!! Hahaa I’m done. I’m not going to read the rest of your garbage, you clearly are argumentative and have a boring life with too much time on your hands but stop wasting mine. GROW UP!

          • cjvg

            Not willing to defend your statements, and trying to belittle others’s for not going along with them!
            Nice, real grown up on your part!

          • Brandy

            Are you still talking to me? WOW. lol Would you let it go already and stop trying to argue with people that have different opinions than you? Geez.

          • cjvg

            Says the kid that post the same reply under 2 different names 3 times!

        • Nor

          I guarantee you you were an excepetion, unless you live in Salt Lake City. You must surely realize plenty of people have sex as teenagers (most people do) and that most people drink as teens? Assuming everyone else can match your monk-like teen years (or should) is a wildly unrealistic expectation.

  • Laurie Edwards

    I’d like to think girls who need emergency contraception would go to their moms for help. I’d LIKE to think that, but it’s unrealistic as often as not. Without a mom’s support and love, the girl needs to be able to make this important decision on her own–and that means without governmental interference. I don’t doubt for a second President Obama is thinking like a loving dad–this isn’t about sexism or control–but he and his Administration are WRONG in demanding ID when a girl needs most to make a personal decision and control her own body.

  • Benjamin Conradie

    This young lady speech makes no sense… two problems.

    1. Teenagers drink and smoke without ID, it does not seem to be a problem to acquire either of these without ID.
    2. 13% of the under 15 age population are sexually active. Therefore the whole country must now pay for promiscuous teens. I am certain emergency contraceptive still applies therefore I can only ask – keep your legs closed and take responsibility for your life. No person under the age of 15 should have sex period.

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s all very well to say what ‘should be’, but stating it won’t make it so. The reality is that some teens are having sex, and you have to deal with the reality, not what you wish it could be. And I don’t understand the statement about you having to pay anything–just because it’s over the counter doesn’t make it free.

      • Benjamin Conradie

        Should in this context is word we use to indicate a wish, this young lady wish to have EC before the age of 15. This implies she is anticipating to have sex. THAT IS REALITY. Why do we need to change a law in most states to suit her promiscuous lifestyle. Hey why don’t we drop the age of consent for boys while we at it – why don’t we allow people to have sex with their sisters and brother… possibilities are endless. Unfortunately for her – society needs to draw a line in the sand. That line says you can receive EC when you are 15.

        As for my – your last statement – discussing this change COST MONEY, would it not be easier to just wait a few years… jesus if you are that eager to get sex, there is nothing wrong with masturbation and it is FREE,

        • Arekushieru

          So, your ‘shoulds’ are more important than someone else’? After all, you are saying that this teenager ‘should’ not be having sex before the age of 15. Way to go, double standards as well as lack of compassion for teens wanting to prevent pregnancy.

          She is NOT asking for the age of consent to be dropped for EITHER boys or girls. Why are you all of a sudden suggesting that it should be dropped for boys, alone? MORE double standards? WOW.

          I wouldn’t mind dropping the restrictions for incest, because the possibilities ARE NOT endless. Rape and consensual relations between brothers, sisters, brother and sister, etc… have one MAJORLY important difference between them; consent. But, of course, why should you care, after all, you would probably condemn a girl for being raped by her stepfather, just not so much if she was raped by a stranger or an acquaintance (as your comments seem to imply a real disregard for people who are engaged in either consensual OR non-consensual incestuous relationships), while completely ignoring that this is one reason why teenaged girls may need access to EC, cause you DO remember that case of the girl raped by her stepfather when she was only 12, or the case of Lina Medina who was raped by her stepfather and became the youngest girl to ever give birth at the age of 5? It points out one MORE reason that girls under the age of 15 might ALSO need EC and might not want their parents to be involved. Thanks.

          Again, as I said above, what you say someone should do does not trump what others say someone should do, especially if those others are the ones that are actually being affected by these very REAL LIFE possibilities. You, yourself, said that young girls anticipating to have sex was ‘reality’, after all. So, by taking away a teenagers ability to access EC, you are making it more likely that she will have to pay for an abortion later on down the road. Which do YOU think is more costly? Derp.

          Discussing the change only costs money because the Obama administration is putting road blocks against it, at every turn. It’s not the teenager’s fault. Seriously.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            Arekushieru – I have copied your mail here as it is blatantly trying to stir – so in order that we don’t talk away from the subject I have answered your statement below…

            You wrote:
            So, your ‘shoulds’ are more important than someone else’? After all, you are saying that this teenager ‘should’ not be having sex before the age of 15. Way to go, double standards as well as lack of compassion for teens wanting to prevent pregnancy.

            No – I never said my should’s are more important, what I did say is that SHOULD is used as a indication of what could happen… I am including the definition for you as it seems you and the person I responded to dont quite get it – should – a verb, the past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (you should go) or to form the subjunctive mood with I or we (I should like to see you; if I should be late, go without me) – I fail to see how that is indicating DOUBLE STANDARDS or PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM HAVING SEX nor COMPASSION FOR TEENS WITH UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

            You wrote:
            She is NOT asking for the age of consent to be dropped for EITHER boys or girls. Why are you all of a sudden suggesting that it should be dropped for boys, alone? MORE double standards? WOW.

            No one asked for it to be dropped for boys, I cant recall a single time where she said it should nor I, she suggested that it is impossible to have an ID if you are under 15 as you cant drive and therefore would not have any proof of age – therefore she is suggesting either you all get ID Books or Cards from birth, get a passport and carry it in your bag, or change THE AGE SO THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO PROOF.

            You wrote:
            I wouldn’t mind dropping the restrictions for incest, because the possibilities ARE NOT endless. Rape and consensual relations between brothers, sisters, brother and sister, etc… have one MAJORLY important difference between them; consent.

            JESUS DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE – READ THAT AGAIN AND TELL ME HOW FUCKED UP ARE YOU! You actually say it is ok for my sister to sleep with my brother cos IT IS CONSESUAL.

            You wrote:
            But, of course, why should you care, after all, you would probably condemn a girl for being raped by her stepfather, just not so much if she was raped by a stranger or an acquaintance (as your comments seem to imply a real disregard for people who are engaged in either consensual OR non-consensual incestuous relationships), while completely ignoring that this is one reason why teenaged girls may need access to EC, cause you DO remember that case of the girl raped by her stepfather when she was only 12, or the case of Lina Medina who was raped by her stepfather and became the youngest girl to ever give birth at the age of 5? It points out one MORE reason that girls under the age of 15 might ALSO need EC and might not want their parents to be involved. Thanks.

            NOT ONCE DID ANYONE SAY WE WILL NOT GIVE EC TO RAPE VICTIMS. Can I have my soapbox back.

            You wrote:
            Again, as I said above, what you say someone should do does not trump what others say someone should do, especially if those others are the ones that are actually being affected by these very REAL LIFE possibilities. You, yourself, said that young girls anticipating to have sex was ‘reality’, after all. So, by taking away a teenagers ability to access EC, you are making it more likely that she will have to pay for an abortion later on down the road. Which do YOU think is more costly? Derp.

            Yes indeed those are the realities, but we are not discussing abortion, we are discussing why it is essential for 13% of the population to pass legislation to have sex because they cant masturbate until they are 15…. and abortion is by far more costly from a monetary perspective but what about the moral value – if your child knows they can have sex and drink a pill the next morning – tomorrow they have a bottle of vodka, they day after that they have two and sleep with 2 boys at the same time, then you sit back one day and look at your child and ask what happened when they are lying in their own vomit, with a needle in their arm, battered and bruised… only because you wanted to give your child – YOUR CHILD – A PERSON UNDER AGE – the right to make decision over when they can have sex because it is ok – I can always just pop a pill. GROW UP.

          • Arekushieru

            “No – I never said my should’s are more important, what I did say is that
            SHOULD is used as a indication of what could happen… I am including
            the definition for you as it seems you and the person I responded to
            dont quite get it – should – a verb, the past tense of shall: used as an
            auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker
            to be obligatory (you should go) or to form the subjunctive mood with I
            or we (I should like to see you; if I should be late, go without me) – I
            fail to see how that is indicating DOUBLE STANDARDS or PREVENTING
            SOMEONE FROM HAVING SEX nor COMPASSION FOR TEENS WITH UNWANTED
            PREGNANCIES.”

            Yes, I am aware of what the term should means. I have quite excellent English skills. And you have actually proven not disputed what I have said.

            “No one asked for it to be dropped for boys, I cant recall a single time
            where she said it should nor I, she suggested that it is impossible to
            have an ID if you are under 15 as you cant drive and therefore would not
            have any proof of age – therefore she is suggesting either you all get
            ID Books or Cards from birth, get a passport and carry it in your bag,
            or change THE AGE SO THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO PROOF.”

            Here, let me copy and repaste for ya. This is something YOU said (the point you seemed to have missed): Hey why don’t we drop the age of consent for boys while we at it.

            “JESUS DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE – READ THAT AGAIN AND TELL ME HOW
            FUCKED UP ARE YOU! You actually say it is ok for my sister to sleep with
            my brother cos IT IS CONSESUAL.”

            Seriously, the man who is against giving a teenaged girl decision-making powers over her own body is giving me grief over something that is consensual? Wow, reality, dude. Saying something is sick does not magically make it so. That goes for young girls wanting the ability to make decisions for themselves about their own bodies.

            “NOT ONCE DID ANYONE SAY WE WILL NOT GIVE EC TO RAPE VICTIMS. Can I have my soapbox back.”

            Hm, I must have missed the part where you DID say that. Care to point that out? No? Thought not.

            “Yes indeed those are the realities, but we are not discussing abortion,
            we are discussing why it is essential for 13% of the population to pass
            legislation to have sex because they cant masturbate until they are
            15…. and abortion is by far more costly from a monetary perspective
            but what about the moral value – if your child knows they can have sex
            and drink a pill the next morning – tomorrow they have a bottle of
            vodka, they day after that they have two and sleep with 2 boys at the
            same time, then you sit back one day and look at your child and ask what
            happened when they are lying in their own vomit, with a needle in their
            arm, battered and bruised… only because you wanted to give your child
            – YOUR CHILD – A PERSON UNDER AGE – the right to make decision over
            when they can have sex because it is ok – I can always just pop a pill.
            GROW UP.”

            Seriously, I’M the one who needs to grow up, when I’M not the one who is saying that teenagers may not be stupid but let’s treat them like they are?

        • Jennifer Starr

          Quite frankly, I’d rather someone that young not have sex at all. But simply removing access to EC or any kind of birth control or protection isn’t going to do it. It’s been a while since I was that age–well over twenty years–but I seem to recall that kids that age think they’re immortal. If they’re set on having sex they’re probably going to still have it, only without any protection. And I’d like to think that every young teen has involved and caring parents that supervise and care about what their kids are into, but many do not. And I hope you’re not suggesting that they should be forced to carry a pregnancy as punishment or consequence–to ‘teach her a lesson’. Because that would not only be sadistic, but unfair to the resulting child as well.

        • HeilMary1

          Do male purchasers of condoms and Viagra have to produce IDs and permission slips from parents, spouses, pastors, employers, etc.?

          • Benjamin Conradie

            The article is not about males, and if it was I would argue the same – children under 15 SHOULD not have sex… the reality as we established is that they do… but we want to discourage them by making it harder for them to get access.

          • Nor

            The law is uninterested in your fantasy world where no one has sex until 15. The law should be interested in reality, like the rest of us seem to be.

        • Nor

          Because having sex at 15 is normal? How old were you when you first had sex?

    • Michelle

      She makes perfect sense, You however, do not.

      1. Some teenagers do. The methods that they are able to acquire tobacco and alcohol probably won’t work when it comes to EC.

      2. How exactly are you paying for EC? OTC does not equal taxpayer funded. Anyone who uses the words “keep your legs closed” shows their true colors. Teen girls aren’t the only ones having sex. Yet few people ever acknowledge the boys or men who are impregnating these teens. Using EC is taking responsibility.

      • Benjamin Conradie

        It baffles my mind how people think when purchasing things OTC that was the beginning and end of that product.

        • Arekushieru

          Wtf does that have to do with anything?

          • Benjamin Conradie

            No you quite right – purchasing EC OTC is NOT the beginning and end of it all as you said – it begs the question why as parents we allow our children to become adults at 12, it begs to ask where our moral values are when we ask children to make decision in how to use an EC which if I am mistaken is to prevent getting pregnant after the deed. Why not use a condom if you were so responsible in the first place. Why is EC a way out and not a first stop. Please bare in mind that NO contraceptive is 100% guaranteed, and pro-creation will find a way. I am asking you – is it ok for your daughter to have sex with the neighbourhood kid at 12. Yes or No? Understanding that oh well if they have sex I can always just pop over to the pharmacy and get her a EC. Is this really the life we want for our children?

          • Arekushieru

            So, this is all about PUNISHMENT? You don’t seriously believe that
            teenagers accessing EC will lead to teenagers having more sex do you?
            If you do, you REALLY don’t live in reality. If you don’t, this is all
            about punishment. Because what OTHER reason is there to deny a teenager
            access to EC just like her PEERS????

            Condoms are NOT FREE. This
            is just another fucking OPTION. Some people are allergic to latex or
            may not have access to condoms. DERP.

          • Michelle

            Why are you assuming that a person under 15 in need of EC consented to sexual activity? Why are you assuming that teens can go to their parents without fear of abuse? We don’t live in a world where that can be assumed.

          • http://illegaljesus.wordpress.com IndieGoddess

            Extremely good point.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            we are not assuming that… in line with the article we are assuming that every person who want EC had consensual sex, which is why this article is mindless.

          • http://illegaljesus.wordpress.com IndieGoddess

            MORALITY cannot be legislated.

            You appeal to parents, but many of these girls DON’T HAVE THE LIVES THAT YOU PICTURE. This isn’t about parents. This is about a reality in life that teenage girls have to deal with. It’s already happening. You can’t stop it. Nor should you. Teenagers may be making choices we think are stupid, Or that are illegal. Etc. They’re testing their boundaries in a lot of ways. It’s what they DO. You may not agree with their choices, but you simply cannot allow your personal moral choices to motivate your politics. What you choose is what you choose. You don’t know any of these people’s lives. Legislating based on your own experiences is very dangerous. There are DIFFERENT PEOPLE in the world living DIFFERENT LIVES.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            I don’t get why it is wrong to appeal to parents, and I don’t get why it is wrong to try and prevent children from having sex by making it harder for them to get EC. Yes different people different lives… however we need to take responsibility for our own bodies. The author pointed out that she wants full control of her body – well having sex could make you pregnant.

          • canaduck

            “I don’t get why it is wrong to try and prevent children from having sex by making it harder for them to get EC.”

            …is this really how you think things work? I know you aren’t a woman, but you must have been a teenager at some point in your life.

          • HeilMary1

            By your logic, ER’s should be off limits to teens injured by their own drunk driving. You’d let such teens bleed to death to teach them a lesson about self-control.

          • maribelle1963

            Because making EC harder to get won’t prevent teenagers from having sex. It will only make them more likely to get pregnant when they do.

            Full control of the female body= ability to stop pregnancy, with BC or EC. Full stop.

          • Nor

            Because if a teen girl does not already have birth control, a gyno, and Plan B purchased for her by her parents by the age of 15, she’s got irresponsible parents. Parents who probably can’t be counted upon to help her, and might hurt her. Or who are the cause of the pregnancy. Fun, huh?

          • Nor

            Because rape.

    • BJ Survivor

      Wow, double standard much? Why don’t you tell your sons/other men and
      boys to keep it in their pants? It just doesn’t occur to you, does it?

      • Benjamin Conradie

        It does occur to me – why don’t you stick to the topic at hand and discuss why a 12 year old girl is sexually active? If my son at 12 is sexually active and I do find out – I will immediately put a stop to it… guess what I will also discuss this with the girl involved parents. What would your reaction be if a father comes to you and tell you your daughter and his son at 12 are having sex? Think about it. I doubt you would have a smile on your face celebrating your child’s womanhood… or if you were the parent of the boy his manhood…

        • Arekushieru

          That is NOT what we’re discussing, and you know it. So why don’t YOU try to stick to the topic at hand? We are discussing the REALITIES of the situation. Kthanks.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            I am trying to and now you joined the band wagon. The topic is – should girls under 15 be able to get contraceptive over the counter. I did not scream double standard and nor did I bring penises into the conversation. Before you get to stand on a soap box scroll up and READ.

          • Arekushieru

            Still ignoring the realities, how sad. The reality IS that teenagers can and will have sexual relations. NOT that we would be PROUD to have our sons and daughters having sex at the age of 12. Seriously, go back and READ. And, that was my point, you did not bring up anything about boys, THUS the double standard.

          • Nor

            I don’t understand why you feel it is necessary or right to punish other people’s children.

        • colleen2

          why don’t you stick to the topic at hand and discuss why a 12 year old girl is sexually active?

          12 year old girls are having sex because, statistically speaking, some adult male decided it would be a great idea to rape a 12 year old girl. I think we all know what sort of ‘man’ would pretend that male responsibility is off topic when the topic is pregnant children.

        • Nor

          Those 12 year old girls are almost invariably having sex with much older boys/men. So… why not impose laws on those men? Like mandatory hormonal suppression of sex drive or sperm production until marriage or the age of 25? Sounds fair, right?

    • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

      1. So you’re suggesting that young teens should get their older friends purchase emergency medication for them?
      2. You aren’t paying for emergency conctreception. Unless you secretly have young teen friends you are driving to CVS or whatever and giving them your money in the parking lot.

      Telling teens to keep their legs shut has never worked. Please join us in reality. Instead just telling people that sex is bad and shameful and something only slutty people do. Maybe teach these kids factual, age approriate sex education. Make sure they are informed about their own bodies. Mention how hard parenting & pregnancy are, how much it will change their lives. Make sure they are taught how condoms work, make sure they know all the types of birth control avalible to them when they choose to start having sex ( not just The Pill). You know, educate them, instead of just telling them no, don’t do that thing.

      • Benjamin Conradie

        Quote: “3. you are a male who will never have to deal with carrying an unexpected pregnancy. You will never have to deal with the stigma that becoming a teen mother has. You will never have to worry about telling your parents you are a pregnant middle schooler.”

        and that is why we don’t want you to have sex… to spare you these humiliation. The fact that I am a male is irrelevant as I trust you will understand biology and somewhere is a boy who had sex. Your argument can only work if the girl was raped. Thus far we have all assumed consensual sex. If that is the case – WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO HAVE SEX BEFORE 15.

        You are by default making sex slutty, dirty and shameful – why not make sex something to strive for when you fall in love with someone special. Why degrade yourself as a women that you are there to pleasure a boy???

        I can only assume there is SexEd in school and your children will be explained how condoms work, and that a clear path is made available for discussion in private. But to change a whole society for 13% of teens… get a grip.

        You might want to step back and listen to some actual girls (teen or older) discuss this subject that actually effects them, and not you.

        • Arekushieru

          “and that is why we don’t want you to have sex… to spare you these
          humiliation. The fact that I am a male is irrelevant as I trust you will
          understand biology and somewhere is a boy who had sex. Your argument
          can only work if the girl was raped. Thus far we have all assumed
          consensual sex. If that is the case – WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT TO
          ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD TO HAVE SEX BEFORE 15.”

          Or you could just stop shaming and stigmatizing people. It is YOUR side that perpetrates this. WE are not encouraging anyone to do anything. We simply want her to be able to PROTECT HERSELF as her older peers would. By not supporting her, YOU are implying that teenagers under the age of fifteen are stupid. All the girl has been asking for is respect and to accept the realities. So far, you have given her NONE of that.

          Nice slut-shaming, btw. By calling sex something to be reserved for only when you fall in love with someone, you are claiming that all other kinds of sex are ‘bad’, ‘slutty’, ‘dirty’ and ‘shameful’, especially by directly using those words. It is YOUR ilk that make any sex you consider immoral, to be wrong. So, why don’t YOU stop making judgments? Then maybe sex will be seen for what it is, a pleasurable activity between two consenting individuals. And you won’t have to WORRY about these teenaged girls being considered ‘slutty’, ‘dirty’ or ‘shameful’.

          We are not asking for a whole society to be changed for 13% of teens (which, btw, kinda puts paid to your lie that free EC will encourage teens to have sex, because only 13% of them ARE doing it. I’m sure that if nothing else could make the rates of sex between teens explode, this certainly won’t, after all), we are asking for them to be granted the same decision-making powers that their older peers are. We’re asking that they be protected, EQUALLY. Oh, and your comment about not changing society for 13% of teens, shows you for the hypocrite you are. After all, if it was MORE than 13% of teens, you’d be doubling down and wondering why our society has become so immoral, saying that THAT is the reason why we should be promoting abstinence. So, damned if they do, damned if they don’t, by YOUR logic.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            By your logic why not allow a toddler the same rights – let babies have sex with each other – we can sit in the nursery and help our babies stand up and stimulate each other… as for sex being dirty and slutty and shameful. I am equating sex with “be in love, know this is what you want to do, understand the consequences and understand what protection you have, Understand your rights and that at any time NO means NO.”

            You on the other hand suggest that we should all do it like rabbits and juts go at each other- sex is only sex according to you with no consequences and no responsibility.

          • Arekushieru

            Now we are getting into the absurd. If babies could consent to have sex they would be able to do it on their own. DERP.

            The only responsibility with sex is that it be consensual. If you feel YOU need to be in love to have sex, fine, but not everyone does. Nor should EVERYONE have to.

            YOU, apparently, want sex to be so full of responsibilities as to be joyless.

            Btw, I am asexual. So much for your theory that I want everyone to go at it like rabbits, just because I want EC available without age restrictions. WHOOPS.

            That you want sex to have consequences, is testament to YOUR judgmental attitude. Nothing more

          • http://illegaljesus.wordpress.com IndieGoddess

            don’t feed the troll!

          • cjvg

            When you can not win by semi reasonable arguments, always resort to the patently absurd intended to create shock and repulsion.

            Are you still under the impression that the people here posses absolutely no critical thinking skills?
            That we are now going to faint and immediately convert to your views, so no toddlers will have sex?!

            Please, at least try to stay coherent and semi lucent.

          • Nor

            What you are arguing for is for preventable consequences to become legally mandatory, at the cost of women’s lives.
            What do you recommend people do when birth control fails? If you are an adult, and have not experienced a birth control failure, either you have not had enough sex, have been shielded from reality by the women you were with, or have been insanely lucky. I’m guessing not that latter.

        • Jennifer Starr

          I would like for there to be comprehensive sex-ed in every school and I would like methods of protection and birth control to be discussed. That’s the kind of education I had in the ’80s. But unfortunately many of these schools now have ‘abstinence-only’, which really doesn’t teach squat apart from ‘remain pure for your future husband, blah blah blah.’

        • Mandy

          Allowing young teens access to things like birth control,condoms, & emergency contreception does not “ENCOURAGE” them to have sex. It acknowledges the reality that there ARE teens who do choose to have sex. And helps give them options to keep themselves safe from STDs and pregnancy.

          “”why not make sex something to strive for when you fall in love with someone special. Why degrade yourself as a women that you are there to pleasure a boy???”"

          Why not join us in reality where people have consensual loving sex outside of marriage or whatever your treshhold for love is? People can be in monogamous relationships, people can think they are in love and realize they were wrong after sex, people can have sex without love for all I care. It’s not my business how they choose their sexual partners. It’s not your business either. You are free to only have sex when you consider youself “in love” just like they are. Just like you should both have access to BC, condoms, and Plan B if those methods fail. Now matter your age. Once a person hits puberty, esp a girl, they need, nay, deserve access to all medications ect relating to reproductive health. No matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel to acknowledge the fact that kids are starting puberty younger these days. An example: I started when I was 9 years old. (Of course puberty does not equal having sex or sexual maturity or anything. I’m just pointing out that hypothetically, very young children are starting puberty young which means they have the ability to get pregnant that young and need to be taught factual sex ed and about their body.)

          And thanks for thinking girls who have consensual sex are “degrading” themselves. I’m not sure you understand consensual sex if you think it means girls/women are only “there to pleasure a boy.” When the sex is consensual there should be mutual pleasure going on for both people.

          & nice trying to throw my words back at me, but I AM a “girl (teen or older” and these issues effect me. Even though I am no longer a teen. I do not want my friends, my peers, the girls I work with to not have access to things that will help prevent pregnancy should they choose (consent) to have sex as teenagers.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            You are grossly patronising telling him to “join [ultra-liberals] in reality” when he sees the same reality as you do- he just has a different moral view of sex to the sex-positive “consent=OK” one.

            I believe consent is NOT sufficient to make sex morally acceptable; you are free to believe otherwise. Consent is the baseline required for a sex act to be legal under civil law and not fit into the MUCH worse categories of evil (rape/abuse); but legal isn’t equal to morally right. For example, I believe those who kill informed-consenting patients with barbiturates at the legally approved Dignitas euthanasia clinic in Switzerland are immoral, but nowhere near AS immoral as shooting somebody in the head to kill them over an unpaid debt.

          • colleen2

            But your beliefs are irrelevant. Do you think we’re stupid? Don’t you think that we understand how very much you hate us?

          • Nor

            We don’t legislate morality in this country. In fact it is illegal to legislate morality in this country. See: the founding of the nation, and Prohibition, for some examples.

        • cjvg

          You are the only one who is making sex shameful , slutty and dirty!
          Apparently you would also like to ensure that those dirty sluts would be easily recognizable by being forced to become pregnant!

          As for the inane and patently dishonest argument that a whole society would be changed if a girl would be able to prevent pregnancy from having sex, that clearly demonstrates that your view of society rest on being able to identify sluts by their being pregnant because they had sex that you consider shameful and in need of punishment.

          The whole of society is not changed in a negative manner by preventing teen pregnancies, that is actually considered a good thing by most reasonable people!

          Only people like you find their society falling apart from preventing unwanted teen pregnancies, now the easily identifiable slut markers are removed.

        • colleen2

          why not make sex something to strive for when you fall in love with
          someone special. Why degrade yourself as a women that you are there to
          pleasure a boy???

          Part of the problem is that we end up marrying men with the personal lives of a Rush Limbaugh or Randall Terry if we fall for this particular line of crap. I can’t imagine anything more degrading than being married to a religious right Republican male.

        • canaduck

          “Why degrade yourself as a women that you are there to pleasure a boy???”

          I can’t believe I didn’t notice this before. You…you know women get pleasure from sex too, right……?

        • Nor

          Why does sex have to be with someone you love? Why does it have to be with someone special? Do you tell this to your male friends? Do they laugh at you like I am?

    • cjvg

      Contrary to your opinion girls do not get pregnant the second their legs are more then 3 inches apart!
      In fact it actually requires a penis and a subsequent ejaculation to achieve that!
      Were is your outrage about irresponsible men and their lose penises falling into open legs?

      • Benjamin Conradie

        It was still not up for discussion – open a new topic if you want to discuss how men’s penises falls into 3 inch cracks by themselves.

        • Arekushieru

          So what? It was implied, after all, because who else would a girl be having sex with that she could expect to get pregnant from? The fact that you are ONLY focusing on the idea of a teenage GIRL being sexually active, shows us where your priorities lay. After all, to be fair, YOU could bring it up for discussion, as well, because YOU are the one who is making such a big effin deal about it.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            As a boy has no need for EC – I dont see how it is relevant. Having sex before 15 is very relevant – since both are illegally having sex they are by law actually raping each other. But then again that is another topic. You keep on trying to make it a gender issue – it is not – it is a Human Rights Issue – do we give a person under the age of 15 the right to make a decision that could fundamentally change their lives.

          • Arekushieru

            So, you show us that your concern really ISN’T about teenagers being sexually active. It’s all about accessing teh terrible, terrible, EC.

            If you did consider it a human rights issue, you would have mentioned the boys in the equation, MUCH sooner, the equation being that teenagers are sexually active, NOT purchasing EC. DERP.

          • cjvg

            Seriously , you try to claim it is NOT a gender issue but you are the one who consistently brigs up ONLY ONE GENDER!

            You are the one who consistently and quite arrogantly dismisses any and all attempts to educate you about the fact that sex that can lead to pregnancy MUST INCLUDE TWO GENDERS!

            You are the one who apparently completely ignorant of the realities of biology dismissed the fact that men and boys are even involved and do carry responsibility for that pregnancy as completely irrelevant !
            In your desire to blame and shame teenage girls You can not even be consistent or honest about your own statements!

            That in itself clearly demonstrates that you are irrelevant to this discussion, there is no point in arguing with those who do not know reason but only dogma and blaming others!

          • colleen2

            He’s not interested in actual conversation. He’s trolling for responses he finds sexually arousing.

          • cjvg

            ehw, now i’m totally grossed out, a guy that gets turned on by forcing teens younger then 15 to carry pregnancies to term?!
            sick puppy!

          • colleen2

            Neurosis, a complete lack of empathy and cognitive dysfunction are the defining characteristics of the Religious Right.

          • cjvg

            sadly that seems to be very true and they are just hell bent on proving it too!

          • Nor

            Boys desperately need EC. They so desperately need it sometimes they get hold of it and sneak it into their gfs food, illegally. They have no control over whether or not they will have a child if birth control fails or they failed to use it to begin with. None. They are completely and utterly fucked – on the hook for the next 18 years whether or not they want to be. Or they would be if the laws actually functioned to protect mothers and children, which of course they don’t. Being a deadbeat dad at 15 can’t be all that fun though. And two 15 year olds having sex aren’t raping each other – it is not rape if they are within several years of the same age.

          • http://illegaljesus.wordpress.com IndieGoddess

            Priorities or creepy fantasies.

    • Jonathan Kuperberg

      Men should keep their penises out of someone’s vagina unless they are married to them. How about that? Instead of talking about female “responsibility” in a context that erases male agency altogether, like one can get pregnant without anyone ejaculating?

      As a supporter of abstinence without a gender bias, I’m tired of misogynist men who hold the old double standard of “playing the field for me, abstinence for thee.” These “pro-family” woman hating liars are the same types who coerce women into abortions when their secret might come out then stand behind the mic and scream about how pro-life they are come election time having bribed the woman to avoid exposure.

      I’d love to see an ab-only book with zero sexist stereotypes or other fuckery and focused on males’ responsibilities. It would be good in cutting the true moral values movement away from bigotry (see also: racists who hide behind pro-life or pro-family when their real goal is “demographic winter” aversion, putting off the Black Planet they fear until after they’re gone and passing white privilege to their children.)

      • canaduck

        I frequently disagree with you and I am totally against abstinence-only teaching, but I have to say that this is a pretty great comment.

      • Benjamin Conradie

        Abstinence combined with proper sex ed is the answer contrary to the authors belief and essay. And that goes for both sexes. I find it hard to believe a young lady want to argue for sexual freedom at 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12…go outside and play with a ball.

        • Arekushieru

          The girl is quite vocal in her support of comprehensive sex-ed. She is talking about REALITY. The REALITY is that a number of girls will have sex by the time they are fifteen. All of them are not going to suddenly become abstinent. So, again, your moral concerns are more important than the ones expressed by the teenager who will be more directly affected by this decision? Wow, what compassion.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            I don’t deny reality – I do question why we need to change the law for 13% of the teen population so that they can continue to have sex without consequences. If you want reality – here is reality. HIV is still a killer and more straight people have it than gay. More women have it than men. STD are rising. A new strain of Gonorrhea was discovered in California which is IMMUNE to existing medicine. Most STD go unnoticed until to late. Most STD can KILL you or cause serious health issues including liver, kidney failure. Having sex as such a young age will harm your psyche and askew your perception of what is morally right and wrong. It will play havoc with your perceptions on what your body is worth and who may touch it. I hope I am getting through to you. This is not an issue about lack of compassion, contrary I am being compassionate by suggestion parents should take control of their teens lives.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Yes- I don’t like the continuing war on parental rights.

          • Nor

            What war on parental rights? As far as I know we’re only waging war on the rights of gay, immigrant and native parental rights. Right?

          • HeilMary1

            I’d rather see under-15 women access EC without hassles than see them suffer pregnancy risks or suffer the facial disfigurement my sex-hating mom imposed on non-sexually active me.

          • http://illegaljesus.wordpress.com IndieGoddess

            If the law isn’t working for the population then we need to change the law. It is not serving its purpose. We need to remove the age restrictions so that that 13% can have their rightful access.

          • cjvg

            Parents who’s kids have sex at such young ages (with or without their knowledge) lost control long ago and most likely do not care one wit anyway.

            What makes you think that denying these kids a way to at least control the most detrimental effect from having sex at such a young age is in any way beneficial?

            At best it would leave the girl pregnant and at worst it will leave her needing an abortion, dead or her health compromised from pregnancy and childbirth at to young an age were her body is not yet equipped to handle it, or a child mother!

            In what delusional universe do these scenarios sound even remotely like they are preferable to preventing pregnancy?!
            It seems like you would just prefer the appropriate punishment for those girls that have sex outside of your control and regulations.

          • Julie Wednesday Strange

            We need those 13% to access EC because we don’t want those 13% to increase the number of teen pregnancies. We also don’t know what happened to those 13% : rape by an adult or peer, condom broke, boyfriend said no to condoms, etc. If we can’t prevent those 13% to have sex, sin ce those 13% exist, can we at least try to mitigate the consequences? No one here is saying having sex at 12 is fucking great and the other 87% should do it too. That has nothing to do with it. The reality is, what do we do with these 13% ? Do we let them become teen moms or suffer painful, expensive,traumatizing abortions OR do we provide them a safe, effective option to avoid those terrible situations? Your insistance on “facing the consequences” is dowright cruel and lacking of compassion. You are not God, you will not change the statistics and allow parents to “take control of their teen’s life” just by denying a fair option to those 13%. So stop pretending.

          • colleen2

            I do question why we need to change the law for 13% of the teen
            population so that they can continue to have sex without consequences

            Once again. We need to change the law to protect girls from men like you, men who spend far too much time fantasizing about having sex with eager little girls who need to be punished.

          • Benjamin Conradie

            You are completely out of line. Your sick suggestion wants me to vomit. If you cant argue a fact – rather not post and especially do not assume anything about any person who you don’t know.

          • colleen2

            Your posts have been most revealing.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I have not approved of some of your rhetoric but I defend you from the depraved liar colleen2. I haven’t seen such filth from the far left since February when two posters who sometimes come round here were on ReligionDispatches: Fiona64 claimed three times I had a “masturbatory lust” for torturing people and people burning in Hell even after I told her I don’t take that part of Scripture literally, while Bill T told a poster he would “BUGGER his OWN CHILDREN” because he was a pro-family conservative. Instead of banning these two moonbat liars and their barbaric libel tactics, RD banned ME for daring to fight back against the scum.

          • colleen2

            Where did I lie? I described his behavior accurately.
            Not one of you has even addressed the topic of male responsibility for unwanted pregnancies in underage girls. It’s pretty clear that if you could just convince adult males (and your poorly raised sons) to stop ejaculating into the vaginas of small children the world would be a better place. Why not do something useful for a change?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            “men like you, men who spend far too much time fantasizing about having sex with eager little girls who need to be punished.”

            That’s a pedo claim: even if you’re not saying he has ever acted on it, that is sick and unfounded in objective truth hence I called it lying.

          • colleen2

            I take it then that you aren’t interested in doing anything useful?

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I believe in trying to convince boys and men to abstain instead of pushing responsibility onto the female side of the equation every time, as I have already said. I also believe in defending pro-Family advocates from lying scum who see fit to falsely accuse them of sex perversity. This is “useful”.

          • colleen2

            I believe in trying to convince boys and men to abstain instead of
            pushing responsibility onto the female side of the equation every time,
            as I have already said.

            Please go do so.Do so amongst the religious right. I do NOT see you doing that here. Not even close.I would say you are doing the opposite,

            I believe that men who want to force 12 year olds to carry pregnancies to term are just as bad as the asshole(s)who raped her in the first place. A man who refuses to even acknowledge that there is an adult male almost always responsible for the rape and pregnancies of little girls is, at best, just a sick, myopic, cowardly fuck with some real issues. If that’s ‘pro-family’ then that I guess ‘pro-family’ means ‘needs supervision from family services’.

          • Nor

            In that case why isn’t your emphasis on birth control restrictions for men? If they aren’t allowed to purchase condoms before age 18, for instance, they just won’t have sex, right? That would fix everything! Maybe we could make it so that they couldn’t buy them until marriage, or that they would be legally required to provide all funds to raise any children they father in their lifetimes, with a country-wide mandatory DNA database to back it up. That would be perfect.

          • HeilMary1

            The real filth is on the far right. Colleen2′s emphasis on male responsibility doesn’t make her a liar, and your refusal to see the enormous hypocrisy of your male leaders is undermining your arguments.

          • Nor

            Posting on the internet is not “fighting back against scum”.

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          It does go for both sexes, you’re right. You only mentioned one though which is why I although closer to your view on most of the issues have called you out as well as the pro-comprehensive sex ed posters. No-one said anything about 7-year-olds having sexual freedom; in practice if someone was so young it would be an issue of childrens’ protection.

      • HeilMary1

        I disagree with you on abstinence-only until marriage because no one will ever marry me, since my anti-contraception Catholic Munchausen by Proxy mom disfigured me when I was in first grade as HER abstinence-only “birth control” excuse. And what about intersex LGBT folks who are banned from marrying in most states?

        • http://illegaljesus.wordpress.com IndieGoddess

          ITA about the gay marriage issue, and the ab-only, but I don’t know how to respond to any of this after “because no one will ever marry me.” You go on to say that you’ve been “disfigured” and this is, evidently, the reason why no one will ever marry you.

          Honey, you could never be so disfigured that no one would love you. You just haven’t met any decent people yet.

          Marriage/coupledom is about being with a person you enjoy being with, and building a life together. And you don’t know that there won’t be somebody who loves you for everything you are. Inside and out.

          • HeilMary1

            Thanks, but due to America’s constant military invasions, we have a shortage of men that increases severely with older age groups and the remaining men, especially in the Washington, DC area, get awfully picky about women’s ages and looks. The most I can hope for are flings with disdainful losers who rudely nitpick my plastic surgery results. Abstinence-only bullies (especially GOP war profiteers) refuse to admit that unattractive and disabled women have very limited options, and that their beloved foreign invasions dramatically reduced those women’s options even further. Spinsters and single mothers are the never-discussed results of wars, and I’d love to see Dems hang this on the Rethugs whenever the Rethugs blame “slutty feminism” for never-married mothers.

          • cjvg

            I concur

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          Let me explain why “in most states” is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant for the meaning that I was intending:

          When I said marrying, I mean married in God’s eyes, NOT the law of the land. A legally-binding contract is NOT good enough for sex to be MORALLY acceptable! I do not believe Christians should even get a legal marriage in jurisdictions where this includes homosexual couples; they should just have a ceremonial marriage (NOT a legal contract, NOT approved by the State- and this is NOT “illegal”, as some have suggested. There is NO law saying you must take out a secular marriage license because you go to Church and have a ceremonial wedding. The two are SEPARATE, separation of church and state does NOT = “church dependent on state”.)

          • HeilMary1

            Sex between two straight or gay people doesn’t need the approval of corrupt clergy and GOP playboy wife-dumpers to earn your self-important seal of “morally acceptable”. That’s like passing for white in a racist regime.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            GOP/Clergy are irrelevant. I consider sex morally acceptable within the New Testament’s parameters, not any particular earthly church hierarchy and CERTAINLY not the State,
            Oh, and discussing morality from a Biblical worldview isn’t about “self.” I think it’s pretty hard to “pass for white”, unless that’s another code word for something else.

          • HeilMary1

            As a burned victim of Catholic tyranny, I reject your religious fascism and as someone scalded red who needs heavy make-up to pass for “human”, I’m offended by your misogyny.

          • Nor

            I am unclear on what purity before marriage means. I’ve met people who won’t kiss or hold hands before marriage, is that what we’re talking about?

          • Nor

            Do you believe homosexuals can’t love?

      • colleen2

        I’d love to see an ab-only book with zero sexist stereotypes or other
        fuckery and focused on males’ responsibilities. It would be good in
        cutting the true moral values movement away from bigotry

        I believe you have misunderstood the reason for the abstinence only movement.

        • HeilMary1

          I have encountered nasty Nazi-like social Darwinism behind abstinence-until-marriage that is directed at shaming and preventing reproduction by “ugly inferior” spinsters like me with smug sermons that scream: “Because we’re attractive enough to marry, God deems us worthy of sex. That no one will propose to you is proof that God wants you to live a celibate, prayerful life. We’re pretty, God loves us; you’re ugly, God hates you! Na na na na!”

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Now you compare us to Hitler’s ideology? If you knew ANYTHING about pro-family Christians you’d know that 1)we’re not for “shaming” people for not being “attractive”/”beautiful”- that is entirely pushed by worldly sexualized types and the liberal anti-family media; even the “blame-male-white-Christians-first” hardcore feminists who have studied how exclusionary beauty standards and body image policing are constructed have NOT put the blame on Christians for this.

            2)the people shallow enough to decide who to marry based on them conforming to “approved” standards of appearance rather than their character, faithfulness, and wider affective complimentarity are the same people who would insist on an “experienced” partner. Not the abstinence-only movement, but the MTV/Far Left “prude”-shaming, virgin-bashing movement that is offended by ideas of sexual exclusivity and self-denial as part of the moral life. You are projecting.

          • HeilMary1

            Both my sex-hating Catholic extremist Munchausen by Proxy mom and sex-loving but no-sex-for-ugly-you married sister loved reading romance novels in which “natural beauty virgins” like themselves always won over the handsome hero from rival cheap-looking or ugly “sluts” like me. I got the same Nazi treatment from the biddies of the USCCB when I called to argue with them about their moral contradictions. Because I grew up disfigured by my mom, I experienced first hand how important looks are over virtue to so-called Christians and Catholics, especially virgin-obsessed PLAYBOYS like cheating Randall Terry, Deal Hudson and Newt Gingrich. Your emphasis on virtue is a smokescreen for looks. Our May Queen processions always elected girls based on their looks, not piety. The “Virgin” Mary is simply the clergyman’s CENTERFOLD.

        • Jonathan Kuperberg

          Yes, yes, I’ve heard all the extreme liberals claim that abstinence, along with pro-life and many other things, are just pure bigotry. However as a pro-family Christian who knows others like myself who genuinely support equal abstinence for males and females and do not wish to return to any mythologized past era involving patriarchy and double standards but just end “free love”, I would say there are enough of us to constitute a true pro-family movement that does not rely on subjugating girls and women and/or lying to them, which will survive once most of the straight up sexists are gone.

          • colleen2

            I would say there are enough of us to constitute a true pro-family
            movement that does not rely on subjugating girls and women and/or lying
            to them, which will survive once most of the straight up sexists are
            gone.

            You would have about 15 people and most of those would be lying. The ‘faith’ of the religious right is designed to never hold adult males responsible for anything.

            It is the religious right that reelects men like David Vitter and Mark Sandford. It’s the religious right who insists we should listen to lectures about family values from men like Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh or Pat Roberts or some Priest who believes that ordaining a woman is worse than raping a toddler.
            I’ve never seen a Christianity that does not subjugate women and girls or lie to us. I would argue that the subjugation of women is a core value for the ‘faiths’ of the religious right. It is the glue that holds their coalition together.

            But, then, all available evidence points to the fact that Christianity does not tend to honor or encourage self reflection or honesty either.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            The coalition of the Religious Right is held together by a proudly supernaturalist (that DOES NOT end in “stitious”!) worldview; the belief Truth is absolute, knowable and on many issues does not change with time so compromise with secular humanists is often unacceptable; and thus an open rejection of the prevailing secular humanist social norms which were for centuries “counter-cultural” but have now somehow BECOME the culture in the West.

            I accept your criticism as a self-reflective and introspective Christian who does not mindlessly shill for anyone, but believe you take it much too far in denying the existence of a nonmisogynist core to orthodox religious groups and their political apparatus.

          • colleen2

            The coalition of the religious right is held together by hatred of and contempt toward women and the LGBT community and the need to keep us in our place. Conversely this same coalition never holds adult males responsible for anything.(this discussion here is a great example). For the religious right, men have rights and women (even little girls) have duties and obligations.

            You really need to work on that self reflection business.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            We actually hold adult males responsible for A LOT if you ever read our materials…
            again, this “hatred” meme about homosexuality? Why keep spewing the SAME old lies instead of just accepting some people have different, stricter standards to you based on their faith, and yet strive hard to LOVE their fellow man as he is made in the Imago Dei?

          • HeilMary1

            If you really cared about loving all humans as made in God’s Image, then you would realize that we are ALL intersexed to varying degrees and that your “know-it-all prophets” of the Bible had no way of understanding intersex syndromes or neurological syndromes like Tourette Syndrome which they condemned as “devil possession”. If your “prophets” were wrong about leprosy and Tourette Syndrome, then they are also wrong about intersex conditions. You’re quite a hypocritical cherry picker even for a pharisee.

          • colleen2

            I do not base my observations on what you/they say or write. I speak of what the religious right and American conservatism actually does and the consequences of those beliefs and actions. I mean you guys are so dishonest and controlling that we cannot even manage to get you to admit here that the person responsible when a 12 year old turns up pregnant is the adult male who raped her. Talk about pathetic.

            As far as I can tell the religious right has NO standards when it comes to reelecting male politicians. And your divorce rate is really quite understandably large. The religious right reelected David Vitter and Mark Sandford. Good lord, your icons are men like Newt Gingrich and Randall Terry.These are your LEADERS. See what I mean about Christianity not placing any emphasis on the development of self examination or honesty?
            And high standards for your clergy? You cannot even stop your own clergy from raping your children. pathetic.
            But the REAL dishonesty in your response is your use of the word love. The religious right’s love looks so much like hate.

          • HeilMary1

            Yeah, my abusive family claimed they “loved me” every time they publicly humiliated me for being as disfigured as they made me, every time they denied me corrective surgery, every time they smacked me around, every time mom badgered dermatologists to amputate my arms, every time mom bullied me to send my hard-earned plastic surgery money to “needy” pedophile priests instead! Their “love” sure felt like old-fashion hate.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            Newt, he’s a bad apple. Randall Terry is not and has never been one of our leaders. He is a fringe figure who most pro-family activists keep their distance from because of his extremism. The Word of God says “Examine yourselves, to see if ye are in the faith… If we live in the Spirit, then let us walk in the Spirit… If we say we have no sin, we live and the Truth is not in us…(eternal death for) “all those who loveth and maketh a lie”. Honesty and self-examination are themes woven into the NT and not absent from the OT either. The sort of victim-blaming fools who would claim a child is responsible for her own rape-induced pregnancy are also in no way reflective of the attitudes most of us have.

            I’m opposed to no-fault divorce and believe the Church has compromised too much with the world in turning a blind eye to that and failing to encourage early marriage among straights which has led to too many men being… “experienced” before the night they should discover sex from scratch with their wives.In my former church there was an element- young males like me and some older people- who took purity seriously, and then too many elitist cosmopolitan progressives who preferred a “sensitive approach” to sexuality which was basically code for anything goes. This is why I left it to look for a better one.

            To accuse loving Christians of “hate” though is, yet again, too far. I find it frustrating you make good points against the excesses and the charlatans but sadly feel the need to keep pushing the same bigoted lies in order to indict the whole of Christianity rather than a (relative) few perpetrators.

          • HeilMary1

            Your psychotic hatred of sex promotes bad marriages between naive, mutually REPULSED people who then inflict their mismatched sexual misery on their kids (like my parents) and on everyone else. Such deceitful sham marriages also cover for closet gays who cheat on the side. And you won’t respond to God’s creation of intersex folks because intersex folks completely debunk your biblical claims that gay couples are “immoral”. Intersex folks are simply the gender variation equivalent of racial and ethnic subgroups, so quit justifying your Nazi contempt for God’s divine gender and racial diversity.

          • Nor

            Don’t love them too much though! You know where that can lead…

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s really hard to respect a lot of the religious right, given that a lot of its most visible members in the media rarely practice anything that they actually preach. Hypocrisy reigns supreme, and it’s hard to respect hypocrisy.

          • Nor

            How many female priests/church leaders you got?

          • HeilMary1

            Bravo!

          • HeilMary1

            No sex before marriage means adultery, divorces and annulments soon after weddings. An ex-neighbor Catholic virgin rudely discovered on her wedding night that her groom was gay. He took her to a gay dive for their “honeymoon” and slept on the floor because she “wasn’t his type”! Your no sex before marriage rule wasted the thousands she spent on her embarrassing sham wedding and annulment lawyers and the TEN YEARS the pedophile priest-protecting Vatican took to annul her NEVER-CONSUMMATED marriage! Abstinence is for you sex-haters and closet gays.

          • Jonathan Kuperberg

            I do not hate sex and the only “closet” relevant to my life is the one with my shirts and jeans. It isn’t “my” rule, it’s a rule held by billions of people. Well done for bringing up priest abuse again btw- you inveterate bigoted fool. One more time and I’m never going to talk to you again, like I stopped with Bill T for his nauseating allegations earlier in the year.

          • HeilMary1

            YOU are the spoiled bigot here since you condemn GOD for making all of us intersexed to varying degrees. Your ignorance of intersex syndromes and reliance on IGNORANT goat herders who died 2,000 years ago for solving today’s multinational high-tech problems is stunningly stupid!

          • Jennifer Starr

            I have no problem with abstinence being stressed in sex education. But if you just simply say stuff like ‘don’t do it, remain pure’ or try scare tactics–if you don’t teach them the facts about sex itself and yes, even protection–if you shelter them from all this stuff in hopes that you’re ‘preserving innocence’–you’re not only short-changing them, but you’re setting them up for a big fall later on. I knew a girl growing up who was so sheltered that she wasn’t even allowed to read young adult books or watch shows like Three’s Company or The Facts of Life. Her family opted her out of sex-ed in school. She got pregnant at fourteen and didn’t even know how she had gotten that way, because the man had assured her that what they had done wasn’t actually sex and she didn’t know any better.

          • Nor

            Abstinence is a fine option. It’s just the vast majority of people don’t/can’t do it. Since the laws have to apply to everyone, and no one is worried about the abstinent getting abortions, why not let the actual people who deal with the actual problem have a say, rather than a bunch of virgins and people who refuse to use any kind of birth control?

      • Nor

        Do you know any men who do? I’ve never met one. The abstinence for men before marriage is a really recent thing. Maybe since the 70′s? I hear it’s not going so good.

    • Nor

      Aren’t a whole lot of unwanted kids/single moms on welfare a lot more expensive than a pill that costs cents to make?
      Why do you think it’s cool to make kids break the law to get health care? And campaign to lower the drinking age if you feel that way, it is much lower in other countries and they have lower rates of teen alcoholism and binge drinking.

      You may then want to get into the business of manufacturing chastity belts for children and teens. Plenty of old Victorian designs that I’m sure will be popular. Help prevent those pesky rapes too!

  • Lilaeth

    What’s the age of consent where she lives? Is that not a factor in setting this age limit? If so, she should be campaigning to change that, not just concentrating on getting the morning after pill. Which is so potentially harmless, you can only take it three times in your lifetime, or so I was told when prescribed it – is anyone telling these girls/women that??

    • Jennifer Starr

      As the morning after pill contains basically the same thing that is in regular birth control pills, I don’t think that’s actually true. I did research and couldn’t find any three times limit.

    • WagatweRHRC

      The three-time limit in one’s lifetime is absolutely false. The only limit ever given is within a CYCLE – not a lifetime. http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecrepeated.html

      “Is there a limit to the number of times I can use emergency contraceptive pills?

      There are no safety concerns about using progestin-only emergency contraceptive pills (like Plan B One-Step, Next Choice and Levonorgestrel Tablets) more than once. Progestin-only emergency contraception is effective for preventing pregnancy after sex each time you use it. However, the label for ella (ulipristal acetate) states that ella should not be used more than once in the same cycle, because there have been no studies of repeated use.”

    • Nor

      You can take it every day if you want. You’d be a little moody probably though. It’s safer than aspirin. It wouldn’t do you any good more than once a cycle, but you could certainly take it. Even downing a whole bottle wouldn’t really hurt you, it would just be like super PMS.

  • AZDem9933

    Terrific essay. Very well articulated.

    When you mention 45 year olds it reminds me that there’s an uptick in abortions for women over 40. I believe this is due to women wrongly thinking they are unable to get pregnant. This belief has been aided in no small part by the media relentlessly spinning “fertility decline after 35!” panic. I’ve had women around my age (44) tell me they were thinking about stopping contraception because “I probably can’t pregnant anyway”. That is not true! If you are still having a period you can get pregnant regardless of your age.

  • canaduck

    All I can say is thank goodness there are so many young women like the author fighting for feminism and reproductive rights.

  • Jodi Jacobson

    I’d like to point out several things in this discussion. Hannah, the author, is 18 years old, soon to be 19. None of you has any idea about *her* sexual activity as she does not explicitly discuss this. It’s none of our business. She is discussing the arbitrary age (15 years old) chosen by the Obama Administration at which teens have to show ID to get access to emergency contraception. This is problematic for numerous reasons, as numerous studies show. One, most teens don’t have the kind of ID required (as Hannah notes). Two, as studies have shown, this age barrier does not magically disappear for those who are older… it forces EVERYONE to show ID, including women in their forties. Having to show ID means that there are lots of barriers posed to lots of women who need a safe, time-sensitive method of pregnancy prevention. It limits where it is sold and during what hours. There are innumerable problems with the policy crafted by the Administration, not least of which is that there is not a single shred of evidence that supports the policy as crafted. Quite the contrary.

    To another point, no one is suggesting we *encourage* teens to have sex early. Rather we are dealing with the reality that some do. Period. When dealing with people’s health, I prefer fact and reality to useless fantasy, ideology, and diatribes.

    So many commenters come so laden with ideology that they can not see the real issues that confront us without their blinders on. That is not a sound approach to public health and public policy.

    Jodi

    • HeilMary1

      IDs would also be a problem for undocumented immigrant women of all ages.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    I personally am tired of all the hysteria around teens having children. My mother was seventeen when she married my dad (willingly) and nineteen when she had me; if teen pregnancy were somehow magically outlawed, I wouldn’t be here. What I want to see is not necessarily more teen pregnancy or less teen pregnancy but only the amount of teen pregnancy that means every incidence was wanted by the woman involved, if perhaps not actively planned for. And then HELP HER SUCCEED as a mother instead of viewing her as a brood mare for an older infertile couple. (Or older single woman. Why is it OK to be a single mom if you adopt but not if you give birth?)

    THAT SAID… I recognize a lot of people won’t agree with me because while you can get behind the idea of teens having sex (and I could come up with a few uncharitable reasons why that is, especially for you men out there), you can’t get behind the idea of teens being parents, even though you’d let them babysit for you. Fine. But I’d just like to say that if you can’t support a teen under 15 getting emergency contraception without an ID because they’re “not responsible,” why on earth are you OK with them getting pregnant?

    And who’s raising these kids to be so irresponsible in the first place? You’re driving by age 16 in most cases. You’re also working by that age. If a teenager can handle *those* responsibilities–and they are major ones–then we’re falling down on the job getting them ready to cope with kids, and that’s our job as their parents too! Must be why there are so many 20, 30, and 40something-aged parents who fail at the job as well. It’s not instinct for the most part, people. It must be taught. The best thing we can do for our kids is *prepare them to be adults*, not expect them to stay children forever, as we seem to be doing now.

  • Mike Reid

    This essay reminds me of how girls and women make poor and unhealthy choices. She chooses whether to be sexually active or not. She chooses who she wants to be sexually active with. She chooses whether or not to use birth control. She chooses what type of birth control she is going to use. She then can choose an “after” pill. And if all those choices are bad, she can then choose to have an abortion. How many choices before she makes a good one?

    • HeilMary1

      So when you guys choose to have non-marital somewhat risky sex, should you be denied STD treatments for anything you might catch in order to teach you a lesson? If Viagra gives you a heart attack while you’re committing adultery, should you be left to die untreated?

      • Mike Reid

        So are you comparing the fetus/baby to a sexual disease or are you comparing being pregnant to that of a heart attack? I don’t follow the logic.

        • cjvg

          You can not understand the concept of unintended preventable consequences ?

          Or you can not understand why girls or women should be able to prevent unintended consequences just like men can?!
          Seems that it is more geared towards females should always be kept terrified of unintended consequences of sex.

          You are so indignant about the prospect of men having to live or die from unintended sexual consequences that you can not see that they are the exact same thing!

          Of course pregnancy can only happen to a female, so no reason for you to insist that girls should have the right to protect themselves from that.
          Who would want females to have the same opportunity to walk away from sex without having to pay the “price” for that.
          Why those females would be exactly like YOU!

          • HeilMary1

            Amen, sister!

        • fiona64

          Are you saying that pregnancy is punishment for having consensual sex? I don’t follow the logic.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Birth control is not a poor or unhealthy choice at all. In fact, it is a very responsible choice.

    • cjvg

      How remarkable, not once in your whole litany of females making bad choices do you acknowledge that a man must also have made a bad choice at one point for a pregnancy to ensue?!

      Is this a case of immaculate conceptions again, there sure are a lot of those going around!

    • Nor

      How are any of these bad choices? At absolute peak fertility for both sexes, sometimes even if on the pill and using condoms, teens get knocked up. If neither of those apparently fail, she wouldn’t know to take Plan B. Abortion is a good choice for many. So is birth control. So is having sex with someone they want to have sex with. Why all the judgement? You were once a teen boy yourself. Did you make sure you took your girlfriends to the gyno, paid at least half for their visits and birth control, got yourself educated by a doctor on the options and had regular testing and sexual health consults with a doctor, bought condoms, and never once forgot to use them? If you didn’t do all that, you were making some “bad” choices too buddy.

  • John H

    Yay! Great essay.