I'm curious to see what Pataki does - the support and the opposition for the bill were each fairly bipartisan - anyways, looks like it's not quite OTC - the pharmacy still has to obtain a blanket prescription and it's not as if someone can grab the drugs off of a shelf...

I'm confused
is your opposition to the prescription-free Morning After Pill simply based on the fact that pro-choicers make bad arguments?

No, it's on the basis that if you need a prescription to take one birth control per day (and you do) then why wouldn't you need a prescription to take a bunch at the same time?

It means that more future left-wingers are going to be flushed down the toilet. There is always a silver lining in every cloud.

So Jake, anyone who uses morning after pills is a left-winger?

I second Mr. Kende. I'm a supporter of the morning after pill being available without a prescription. I understand the reasons for opposing it, since it is a mix of very strong hormones, but for now I'll leave it there, since I have to go shove a bunch of not-so-strong painkillers into my system in hopes of aborting this hideous knee pain.

Karol,
But why the hell do women need a prescription for taking birth control? So a doctor can asses whether the woman really doesn't want to get pregnant? Or so a doctor can give them a 2-minute spiel about health-stuff that the pharmacist can do as well?

Fact is, in an emergency situation, it's not always possible to see a doctor on time. And furthermore, having to get past the gatekeeper (the doctor) adds enourmous costs to an already strained system.

We need less bureacracy and regulation of health, not more. That's how you can simultaneously increase quality, and reduce costs. Sure, you can dismiss this as mere libertarianism, but I don't see why it shouldn't appeal to a staunch conservative as well.

Joseph,

But the thing is that they do need a prescription for them. I agree we need less bureacracy but we also need consistency. It makes no sense to require a prescription for a steady medicine while not requiring one for a large, one-time dose.

Sorry for peperring you with combative comments today, just a little bored at work:

That being said, I think you've got it backwards. It wouldn't make sense to require a prescription for something one-timey, but then let people take it all the time without one--but that's not true in reverse. It is the nature of all emergencies, medical or otherwise, that certain exceptions have to be made, and rules should be circumvented.

A patient with, say, heart disease, may require months of diagnoses and examination to prepare for surgery. But a person with a heart attack may get operated on right away, with the doctor knowing a minimum of the patient's history. I don't see what's wrong with this logic.

I think the real problem you have with the "Morning-After Pill" is that, to you, taking birth control ex-post-facto is some vague form of abortion that you aren't comfortable with. If you thought it was a good thing, for people to be able to prevent (or terminate) unwanted pregnancies after sex, you wouldn't want to throw up hoops and hurdles.

Also, if you're going to go by current law, people don't need a doctor's order to get an abortion, right? They just go in and get it done. Isn't taking a pill far less dangerous and risky than that?

Joseph,

The post I linked to was back when I was still mostly pro-choice. I assure you it's not because I want to throw up hurdles to people getting the morning after pill. It's isn't abortion politics to me in this case, it's just common sense.

People don't need a doctor's order to get an abortion but they do need to see a doctor before they do. They get a full check-up, including blood work, blood pressure test, etc. They don't just walk in pregnant and walk out not.

In your heartattack case, people go to a doctor. They don't self medicate the problem. A doctor is essential in an emergency.

Let me use a better example that has some personal relevance. I happen to be severely allergic to some foods (mainly nuts, like peanuts) and so I have a doctor prescribed anaphylactic analgesic that would open my lungs and allow me to breathe in the event of an emergency. It comes in the form of a syringe.

Now suppose, I didn't have one on me, or I didn't know I had the allergy, or my prescription had lapsed, and I ate a nut at a restaurant. Would you be opposed to my using one without first seeing a doctor. Should restaurants not carry them in their first-aid kits, because restaurants aren't able to prescribe, or confirm the prescriptions of a sick customer.

I suspect you would say that in this situation, I, or anyone else should be able to get the shot, without having a prescription. So what's the difference. Considering all the hype about morning-after pills, and the like--I find it hard to believe that your opposition is just based on medical reasons, and not based on value/something abortion-related.

If i'm wrong, then explain to me the difference between the pill, and my allergy medicine.