Morning After Pill
The Herald reports:
Girls may be given free access to the emergency contraceptive pill at their local Auckland pharmacies in a bid to reduce teen pregnancies and abortions.
The medicine can already be sold by many pharmacists without a doctor’s prescription, including to girls without parental consent.
I have some concerns with this proposal. Not to do with having it available without parental consent – that has been the case for over a decade. I would hate to see however the morning after pill seen as just like any other contraceptive, and something which is okay to take regularly, as oppossed to in an emergency.
For that reason there is some benefit about having to see a doctor, who can impress upon the recipient the need for proper contraception. One doesn’t want to make it difficult for people to get hold of, but I am aware through friends who have taken it that can cause nausea and vomiting plus some tenderness, so it really is preferable not to have to rely on it too often. Adults know this, but young teenagers do not always.
Obviously it doesn’t affect me directly, but I used to be a youth leader to a group of 14 to 18 year olds, and part of that sometimes involved helping them cope with the consequences of unprotected (or protection which failed) sex, and it really did help to have them see a doctor to get the emergency contraceptive pill, rather than just grab one from the pharmacy.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
It depends how you look at it really -
Of course its not something that should be taken as a regular contraceptive, but from the young girl’s point of view, the visit to the doctor may add extra stress onto an already stressed mind. For those who don’t regularly have sex, it could be a better option than a semi-permanent pill, which can have side effects. Of course, the best option remains to refrain from sex altogether, but I suspect that would go down like a tonne of lead bricks amongst randy (and high charged emotionally) teens.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
And another piece of the Clark feminist agenda is implemented, god help us if this evil maggot ever gets another term.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I think this is a pragmatic response to the current shortage of Doctors – typically its several days to a week before you can see a GP nowadays, so requiring a Doctors prescription for the morning after pill is a little self-defeating.
[DPF: The after-hours centre in Wellington sees people without an appointment, and medical centres will always fit urgent cases in regardless]
May 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The pharmacist is a highly trained health professional ?
A bit different from getting it off the shelf ?
Confused again ?
[DPF: GWW may be different but most people don't want to talk about their sex life in the middle of a pharmacy, over the counter, while everyone listens in]
May 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
It’s the “free” bit that bothers me as much as anything. Nothing is ever “free”.
Bring back personal responsibility. Taxpayers should not have to protect people from their silly decisions. It’s time we said no to being forced to pay for this sort of thing, including abortions and the DPB. That would be the single biggest step we could take to encourage responsible behaviour.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
When are people going to realise that sex is not about having fun?
It can be fun, of course, and much more but that’s not its main purpose.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It’s much better to have to provide for a pill than a baby. Think of it as saving a lot of money.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
From what I’ve read, this is a pilot that’s been suggested by a working group of a DHB, not government policy…I’m also not sure that it’s even been confirmed/approved? So much for implementing that feminist agenda.
I reckon giving greater access to (along with greater education about) this, and other contraception options is a pretty smart thing to do…as a taxpayer, would you rather pay the minimal cost associated with dispensing a pill if/when it’s needed, or the ongoing (social & financial) costs associated with NZ’s rather high teen pregnancy rate?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I would much rather someone have access to the morning after pill absolutely any time they want it, than later have to deal with an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy. Sell them at Starmart for all I care.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
How many of the teenagers who get shagged on a saturday night are going to spend Sunday morning looking for a chemist?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
One doesn’t want to make it difficult for people to get hold of, but I am aware through friends who have taken it that can cause nausea and vomiting plus some tenderness, so it really is preferable not to have to rely on it too often.
WTF? It’s a pill that forces the uterus to shed its lining and induces an artificial period? How can that be good for anyone? It doesn’t nudge, suggest or increase the chance of a period, but actually 100% forces an unnatural disruption of the menstrual cycle. Furthermore, we’re talking about a young girl, whose body is extremely delicate.
Why would you want this accessible to teenage girls?
I think that it’s a good idea to begin to strategise in preventing abortions but this is not the way to do it. I have many friends who refuse to take the morning after pill due to the terrible damage it can have on the girl’s ability to conceive later on. There have been countless studies done in the US which show that use of the MAP once or more can lead to side-effects including severe and irregular periods and hormone imbalances, as well as increased chance of developing breast cancer, problems with conceiving naturally, and an increased chance of miscarriage.
Above all, this proves that pro-contraception sex education is not working
May 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
It’s much better to have to provide for a pill than a baby. Think of it as saving a lot of money.
Awesome. Another narrow-minded, short-sighted comment based on fiscal outcomes as opposed to consequences associated with a human life. We, as a society, should be encouraging girls (if they choose to have sex at all) to at least have the baby.
I semi-agree with radvad and totally agree with kiwitoffee – if you’re going to have sex, then you have to accept the consequences.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
So Hoolian, when these girls that we (as a society) encourage to have the baby can’t afford to raise it, and need support from us (as a society) to feed/clothe it etc, we won’t be hearing any squeals of protest about too many Government handouts for people who should know better?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Danyl (for once) has a good point. Also once again it is the woman who bares the cost of a (hopefully) consensual act if they are required to see a Doctor. Doctors valuable time should be spent on healing the sick, not counselling teenagers to have safe sex or (the near impossible teaching mission) abstain.
I say if you are going to spend any public money then it should be at the root of most societal problems, which is preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place. If anything is going to be “free” and highly available then it should be the morning after pill.
And remember that behind every demand for the morning after pill is a MAN so it does affect men directly.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
One response was entirely predictable:
‘Brendan Malone, spokesman for the Catholic Church-aligned Family Life International group, said widening access was a “deceptive” response to teen pregnancy and abortions.
“It’s deceptive in that it seems like a good idea but is not addressing the root causes of the problem and creates other problems.’
This comment should be viewed in the light that the Church has not been really successful in addressing the root causes of problems (especially those affecting young people) within its ranks over the years. The Church (and ofter conservative groups) have sat back over the years and offered no help or support for teenage girls (and boys) wondering what was happening to their bodies as they progressed into adulthood, they did not even dare ask their mums or dads.
Perhaps it was ‘The Little Red School Book’ which finally came to the assistance of young people in such a situation.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Sell them at Starmart for all I care.
Its obvious that you don’t care at all.
So Hoolian, when these girls that we (as a society) encourage to have the baby can’t afford to raise it, and need support from us (as a society) to feed/clothe it etc, we won’t be hearing any squeals of protest about too many Government handouts for people who should know better?
Not from me. If you’re going to accept a society which basically promotes sex as a recreational activity without any consequences, then you’re just asking for trouble. I support Government assistance for teens who have children: 1 – Because it’s better than the alternative; 2 – Because adoption is a viable option; 3 – Because as a society we have a responsibilty to promote life over death; 4 – Because we have a lot of money, and we waste it on lesser things.
I’m not a DPB basher. I think it has positive uses.
Again, we can all blame this predicament on the current sex education that we give to teenagers. I am part of the generation that has been ‘educated’ under this scheme and I know it doesn’t work. The choice of sex is up to the individual, but educating them on how to participate in a free-for-all and then how not to accept responsibility is not doing anything for NZ.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The dollars mean very little in this context. In fact, they obscure the real issue.
A pregnanat teenager going to a chemist to get a ‘morning after’ (what a euphemism – it’s an abortion) pill is a catastrophe for all concerned.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Oh, piss off peterwn , take your Catholic-bashing to another thread, there are plenty of them out there for you to entertain your anti-Pope, anti-Christian convulsions of rot.
You may not agree with the CC but you cannot argue that high teenage pregnancy is due to the CC. They’re totally unrelated. FLI has every right to have an opinion on the matter, as it has the right to defend what it considers the moral right of the unborn.
This comment should be viewed in the light that the Church has not been really successful in addressing the root causes of problems (especially those affecting young people) within its ranks over the years.
You’re right – the CC is to blame for raging hormones in teenagers.
The Church (and ofter conservative groups) have sat back over the years and offered no help or support for teenage girls (and boys) wondering what was happening to their bodies as they progressed into adulthood, they did not even dare ask their mums or dads.
The CC has never taught against seeing a doctor or any health professional, nor has it ever encouraged children not to ask their parents anything! Honestly, take your dreary idiocy elsewhere.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I’m not a big fan of government schemes but as they go this is a good one. 300k / year is a bargain compared to the millions they would piss away on rail and at least you can guarantee that everyone who would use it actually wants it. Not to mention the potential for future welfare savings. My only concern is that it won’t be used widely enough by those who need it. After all, free contraception has been around for ages and that hasn’t been working. Obviously more education is needed to instill some responsibility while leaving this option as a backup.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
You hear they have also come up with a morning-after pill for men…..
..
..
You take it and it changes your DNA…
May 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I think Hoolian has summed it up.
The concern is not about people having sex, or the availability of such a pill, it’s about the thought process ease of access encourages in young people e.g. sex is just something to do during the ads of American Idol, with no consequence, or inconvienience, whatsoever. For those young and ignorant enough to view the only possible consequence of sex as pregnancy, it can only increase the spread of STDs.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Oh well, more ambulance at the bottom of the hill mentality from the evil feminist ideologies that constantly undermine parental rights. The socialist family destroyers fear the loyalties formed in loving bonds, as they’re so hard to break.They hate father/child relationships. No wonder alarming statistics relating to STD and teenage sexual promiscuous misbehaviors is viewed as just another scourge for society. Add to the cauldron family breakdown and fatherlessness and you have a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile another infanticide goes down. When is the election as these callous sods must go, our children deserve much better from government. Surely enough is enough.
180,000 kiwi children live in poverty and the f##ked up gummint worry about the morning after pill for girls who like sex.Good on them and I hope Doc Sullen likes his new derail train -set.
I know what person needs a cyanide piLL !! That would make my morning cuppa and fag real good, and we all could live happily thereafter.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
After all, free contraception has been around for ages and that hasn’t been working. Obviously more education is needed to instill some responsibility while leaving this option as a backup.
Or maybe a whole new approach all together?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I don’t see how increasing access to one of a large number of contraceptive devices promotes sex as a recreational activity. And even if it does, let’s be honest about this; as much as some people may WISH sex was purely for procreation, the simple truth is that’s far from the case. I can say with complete certainty (and I’m pretty sure this goes for the vast majority of people my age & younger) I’ve never had sex for any reason other than strictly recreational purposes!
May 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I don’t see how increasing access to one of a large number of contraceptive devices promotes sex as a recreational activity.
No one said that. I wouldn’t apply your technical term “recreational” to any sex I have with my partner just because we do not plan to concieve.
Before I thought about making the MAP free and easily accessible, I’d make condoms free from whereever they are presently sold.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Its just not fair why should an old bastard like me have to pay taxes to tidy up after some young bucks night of fun but have to buy my own viagra so I can have some fun!
May 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Shit, you know an ideas bad when even the attention seeking liberal Farrar has concerns.
Danyl you moron: people can go the ED dept. and alternative after hours places. They don’t need to go the their GP four days later. So much for your pragmatism.
Craptus Kate: if there is man behind every demand for the MAP, then why don’t the woman ask them to go get it for them? Or is that just too much trouble? I thought the whole deal was supposed to be recreational and consensual?
Doctors have far more important things to be worrying about than playing pretend mommy or daddy and fixing up the mess a child makes – it is the parents who should be held accountable. So make them come along as well.
If the country was serious about stopping unwanted teenage pregnancy, they would take the same approach as for smoking. Promote abstinence.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Agreed MrTips
May 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Ummm goodgod…I think you’ll find Hoolian did say exactly that: “If you’re going to accept a society which basically promotes sex as a recreational activity without any consequences, then you’re just asking for trouble”.
So…if you’re not planning to conceive, and it’s not recreational…what is it? Part of a daily routine? Sorry, just being cheeky there
And Mr Tips…you can’t seriously be arguing that there isn’t a man involved with every request for the MAP? You do know where babies come from, right? A man CAN go with a woman to collect the MAP, but I think you’ll find doctors/pharmacists usually like to deal with the person taking a medication where at all possible.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Rogz,
now I know why Hoolian gets so grumpy. Observe the qualifying clause of this sentence:
“If you’re going to accept a society which basically promotes sex as a recreational activity without any consequences, then you’re just asking for trouble”.
Ask Lousie Nicholas if she intends to sue TVNZ for “taking avantage” of her even though she consented to watch the news all those years ago.
Sex isn’t anything near “recreational” at any time, that’s just a colloquial definition.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Rogz
No I didn’t argue that. Go and read it again. It clearly points out that if a woman is prepared to enter into a consensual arrangement for sex with a man, they should be prepared to let the man, NAY..they should demand it- that the man have some say or do some action afterwards as well. Like stick around. And the doctors should as well. This whole feminist “its my body” jargon just promotes separation that society is picking up the tab for.
goodgod: do you shoot yourself in the foot for fun or is a paid endeavour?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“goodgod: do you shoot yourself in the foot for fun or is a paid endeavour?”
oh yawn. This is one of those trolling comments from lefty idiots who want me to panic over their lack of comprehension skills?
Fuck off. If you can’t understand sentence structure, go fuck something for “recreation”.
Hmmm, I’m warming to the “get fucked” attitude. I must use on idiots more often.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
If the country was serious about stopping unwanted teenage pregnancy, they would take the same approach as for smoking. Promote abstinence.
Preventing teen pregnancy by ‘promoting abstinence’ is a bit like curing cancer by going around telling people not to develop tumors.
Contraception based sex-education doesn’t seem to work very well either – all the reputable studies show that it doesn’t matter if you give kids free condoms or Jesus, they still get each other pregnant at roughly the same rate.
Maybe free emergency contraception won’t work either – but maybe it will. Since nothing else does its worth a shot.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Craptus Kate
I guess its gone over your head, Tips – but there’s no name you can call Cactus Kate that’s more offensive than the one she’s already using.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Maybe free emergency contraception won’t work either – but maybe it will. Since nothing else does its worth a shot.”
I hate to break it to you Danyl, but the best available research says that it won’t work.
A report published in the Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology last year examined 23 different studies which all examined whether increased availability of the emergency contraception reduces teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, and it stated the following:
“To date, no study has shown that increased access to emergency contraception reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates”
In fact they called such claims “overly optimistic”
Can anyone say “waste of taxpayer money”?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
goodgod, no matter how superior you claim your linguistic skills to be, the surest sign of a weak (or total lack of) argument is resorting to personal insults.
I’m afraid your Louise Nicholas reference passed me by a bit…perhaps a lack of comprehension born of the ‘rubbish in – rubbish out’ phenomenon?
And just because you don’t have recreational sex, doesn’t mean nobody can (or does). I can assure you there’s plenty of people out there having sex quite often, just for fun, without a single pregnancy resulting…if that’s not recreational, what is it?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The morning after pill is technically an abortion…. How do we feel about it in that context?
I have no issues with the concept, but lets not pretent it’s anything other than killing a potentially viable human being.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Preventing teen pregnancy by ‘promoting abstinence’ is a bit like curing cancer by going around telling people not to develop tumors.
Danyl: I suggest you go and tell that to the many, many researchers who have shown that stopping smoking, or never taking it up, significantly reduces your chances of developing a cancerous tumour. The problem with many of your analogies is that they are simply not analogies at all – they are distraction techniques.
goodgod: oh I see, you are paid for it.
burt: correct. But the ASC and other liberals don’t want us to tell people that truth.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
MrTips
They need to know… Lets also look at the message it sends to young people. That being don’t worry about contraception and just deal with it the next day. Just watch the STD rates climb and then wonder why!
It’s foolish to promote an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff strategy – better to have a “barrier” – even if we would rather not have the barrier…
May 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hoolian:
Oh, piss off peterwn , take your Catholic-bashing to another thread, there are plenty of them out there for you to entertain your anti-Pope, anti-Christian convulsions of rot.
“You may not agree with the CC but you cannot argue that high teenage pregnancy is due to the CC. ”
I never said that.
“They’re totally unrelated. FLI has every right to have an opinion on the matter”
I never said that they should not.
“, as it has the right to defend what it considers the moral right of the unborn.”
That was only one limb of their argument, one which I cose not to comment on.
“This comment should be viewed in the light that the Church has not been really successful in addressing the root causes of problems (especially those affecting young people) within its ranks over the years.”
“You’re right – the CC is to blame for raging hormones in teenagers.”
Read what I wrote again – I never said that
“The Church (and ofter conservative groups) have sat back over the years and offered no help or support for teenage girls (and boys) wondering what was happening to their bodies as they progressed into adulthood, they did not even dare ask their mums or dads.”
“The CC has never taught against seeing a doctor or any health professional, nor has it ever encouraged children not to ask their parents anything! Honestly, take your dreary idiocy elsewhere.”
Anyone who makes that sort of comment with respect to 30+ years ago must be living on a different planet. The reality was that this was a taboo subject at the time and the churches (especially the Catholic and fundamentalist ones) were right at the forefront of keeping it a taboo subject. Same goes for sexual abuse – kids were too scared stiff to tell anyone, if they did they were greeted with disbelief, and if abuse was discovered in an institution (including Catholic schools, orphanages etc) it was covered up and if a Brother or Father was implicated, he was quietly moved to another posting (to repeat the sins) instead of being defrocked and handed over to the police.
One would have thought that it would be more appropriate to teach youngsters the facts of life than to ram the dogma of ‘purity’ down their throats all the time.
If you do not like my postings, then ask DPF to slap some ‘demerits’ on me.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
peterwn
Your first comment would suggest that on this subject you are about 50 years behind the Catholic Church.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
One other thing…
A ‘morning after’ (read ‘abortion’) pill is not a contraceptive.
It doesn’t stop contraception. It kills a foetus.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
kiwitoffee
Technically it kills a zygot, it’s not a foetus till it reaches a critical mass (2 or 3 weeks I think) – but it’s still human life.
So yes it’s an abortion pill, but looking at the negative karma I have for mentioning that before, people don’t want to know that.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Keen to get a reference for this…. because it doesn’t tally with my experience. I’ve helped run Christian youth groups for 20+ years and can think of 3 cases where Christian teens have become pregnant. I’m not sure the rate would have been that low had I been teaching in the local high school.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I’ve went with a previous partner, after protection failure, to see the pharmacist (it wasn’t in NZ and was free). He explained everything very carefully and explained all the possible side effects and ensured that we were practising safe sex. Whilst we do need to be careful that we don’t trivialise having to use a MAP, if the example I went through is the model we’re adopting, I don’t think we will be. Pharmacists should also have the right to refer patients to a doctor if they think that the recipient is troubled or there are any other problems that aren’t being adequately dealt with.
The MAP should definitely be free. If you can’t afford to pay for it then you certainly can’t afford to raise the associated child.
In my opinion this is the smartest thing written in this thread so far. To the best of my understanding, women can get free condoms from family planning but guys have to pay to see a doctor or go through the chemist and pay.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I’ve helped run Christian youth groups for 20+ years and can think of 3 cases where Christian teens have become pregnant.
That you know of. A female teacher I know recently heard her (male) headmaster give a speech congratulating himself on the lack of teen-pregnancies in his school. My friend almost choked on her coffee.
Studies highlighting the failure of abstinence only schemes were widely publicised last year.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
burt
Thanks for clarifying that. From a scientific point of view I guess its important to name and distinguish things.
But these are only different stages in a single process. And, as you say, the point remains.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“Maybe free emergency contraception won’t work either – but maybe it will. Since nothing else does its worth a shot.”
As I said above, bring back personal responsibility. Let the consequences of actions remain with those who cause them, both male and female. Change incentives and you change behaviour. Sure, there will always be idiots but they will likely only be idiots once.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Keen to get a reference for this…. because it doesn’t tally with my experience. I’ve helped run Christian youth groups for 20+ years and can think of 3 cases where Christian teens have become pregnant. I’m not sure the rate would have been that low had I been teaching in the local high school.
One word event that proves this untrue – Parachute.
The number of people (most unmarried) who get pregnant at this event is laughable, and I would suggest comparable to the non Christian population.
Abstinence doesn’t work for most people, it may work for some, but not all, just like the safe sex message doesn’t work for all, some people are just to stupid/unthinking, but I’d say from personal knowledge the safe sex works for more people than the abstinence, even Christians.
From personal experience I fully support this measure, but I’d also like a law change so a guy can have some say over what happens with a failure of contraception. Cause in my situation she lied about going to get the MAP, and about 6 weeks latter told me she was pregnant. I’m no longer with my child’s mother (for the above obvious reason), and I love my son to bits, but the law needs to be changed to give men some rights.
For the record I’m against all religion, and don’t think it has any place in modern society when it comes to discussion about things such as sex, or questions of morals.
You can be moral and do the right thing without referring to scripture.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
This is an excellent and pragmatic policy. If people are serious about addressing teen pregnancy, dpb numbers and child poverty then they should support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The result of three decades of the tax-payer funded Family Planning (sic) Association: record STDs, teen pregnancies, and abortions. And now girls have to take abortion pills to try to make the picture look better for their sake. Can’t admit they’re wrong, certainly.
Nothing needed like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff when there’s no fence at the top.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“The number of people (most unmarried) who get pregnant at this event is laughable, and I would suggest comparable to the non Christian population.”
Facts? figures? or just hot air?
“From personal experience I fully support this measure, but I’d also like a law change so a guy can have some say over what happens with a failure of contraception. Cause in my situation she lied about going to get the MAP, and about 6 weeks latter told me she was pregnant. I’m no longer with my child’s mother (for the above obvious reason), and I love my son to bits, but the law needs to be changed to give men some rights.
For the record I’m against all religion, and don’t think it has any place in modern society when it comes to discussion about things such as sex, or questions of morals.”
The contradictions in these statements are mind boggling.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
The Emergency Contraceptive Pill, which can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, is currently available from a number of places including Family Planning clinics. For people under 22 years of age a visit to a clinic, for help with issues such as contraception, testing or treatment of sexually transmissible infections, or for the ECP is free – there will be a $3 dispensing fee when the script is presented at the chemist. For those over 22 with a Community Services Card, the cost is $5 plus the dispensing fee and for everyone else the cost is $22.50 plus the dispensing fee. If you attend a Family Planning clinic you will have a consultation with a nurse who will discuss future contraceptive options, if the patient is at risk of a sexually transmissible infection or if violence or coercion is an issue.
Referring to the ECP as the morning after pill is inappropriate because women have 72 hours to seek assistance.
Any initiative which removes a barrier to people accessing services, such as cost, is to be applauded.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Mr Pits
“they should be prepared to let the man, NAY..they should demand it- that the man have some say or do some action afterwards as well. Like stick around”.
“then why don’t the woman ask them to go get it for them? Or is that just too much trouble? I thought the whole deal was supposed to be recreational and consensual?”
hahahahahaha. Getting a man to come to an after hours doctor’s clinic to get a MAP, sit through the consultation with a woman, and then having him fork into his own pocket to pay for it? You HAVE to be joking.
You obviously don’t understand your own gender very well. Behind every solo mother having to rely on the taxpayer to feed her kid there is an absentee father who isn’t paying his fair share that the taxpayer is paying for.
The argument here is that the taxpayer should take the cheaper option, free MAP’s. Hell I would even put it through the water supplies in some areas of the country.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Studies highlighting the failure of abstinence only schemes were widely publicised last year.
“Report: Abstinence not curbing teen sex”
The headline is self-contradictory. Obviously abstinence curbs sex.
Far more accurate would be to say that one-size-fits-all programs from government don’t work. Until parents bother enough to be concerned that their 12 year old daughters dress like hookers for example, you can give up on any program of “sex education”. Especially since classroom discipline is worse than ever. I mean, why should they be listening to their teachers now? Talk about pissing in the wind looking for the government to solve anything like that.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“The number of people (most unmarried) who get pregnant at this event is laughable, and I would suggest comparable to the non Christian population.”
Facts? figures? or just hot air?
I know of 3 or 4 people personally who have gotten pregnant & I know of maybe 10-12 more who have.
And I thought it was common knowledge amongst most younger people that Parachute was where a lot of young Christians have their first sexual experiences.
The contradictions in these statements are mind boggling.
Contradictions? I missed any.
Are you one of those people who think morals can’t be separated from religion? Like God has copyrighted them?
Or do you think that me loving my son now is somehow contradicted by me saying that men should also have some say in what happens to their sperm in the case of contraception failure? Cause to me that just pragmatism. Sure in the 1st place I didn’t want to become a father because I felt I wasn’t ready & it wasn’t a good environment for him to be born into, but once there wasn’t anything I could do to change what had happened I ‘manned up’ and enjoy spending time with my son & watching him grow whenever I get the chance.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“Hell I would even put it through the water supplies in some areas of the country.”
Really? Something to treat raving feminist fuckwits, pseudo liberals and socialists would probably be a more useful additive. After all, they’re the root of just about every social problem that ails us.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Thanks for your sweeping generalisation that all men are scum. As I wrote, I went, sat through the whole thing but didn’t have to pay as it was free. I would’ve happily paid. If you’re in a relationship where your partner wouldn’t do that for you (as in the man go with the woman) then you should probably rethink your relationship choice.
I’m willing to accept generalisations for the sake of argument but this is just dishonest.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I am a pharmacist who regularly supplies the Emergency Contraception Pill. In almost every case this is done in a private consultation room and not over the counter at all. I point out that the ECP is an emergency measure and not as effective as regular forms of contraception.
Condoms and the pill are already widely available for free at Family Planning Clinics around the country, so I don’t believe that introducing this scheme will make a huge difference to rates of teenagers having or not having sex. It will help those people who can’t be seen at Family Planning or find the $35 or $40 too expensive.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Mr Tips
Your last point at 2:39 is a very good one.
Why doesn’t the Government promote abstinence? It seems to think it can do everything else.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Toffee
I wouldn’t class the ECP as an abortion pill. It depends on when you define pregnancy as starting. The ECP works before implantation which is where the British Medical Association believes that pregnancy starts. Implantation is an easily measureable event by way of a pregancy test which makes it a logical choice for the start of pregnancy.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
OwhiroLady,
Referring to the ECP as the morning after pill is inappropriate because women have 72 hours to seek assistance.
Referring to it as “contraception” is inappropriate because by the morning after or within that 72-hour period, conception either would have taken place or not. If it has, then the pill is flushing that zygote/embryo/foetus — strike that, PERSON — out of the woman, meaning that tiny human won’t be born.
Rx,
Condoms and the pill are already widely available for free at Family Planning Clinics around the country, so I don’t believe that introducing this scheme will make a huge difference to rates of teenagers having or not having sex.
Maybe not, because the FPA crowd have already indoctrinated most of the country with their failing policies that have seen New Zealand have the highest abortion-to-births ratio in the western world and the second highest STI rate in the western world. Let’s keep pumping millions into the FPA, because it’s a fund shortage stopping them from being successful, right? Give me a break.
kiwitoffee,
Why doesn’t the Government promote abstinence? It seems to think it can do everything else.
They won’t because this Government and many of its supporters subscribe to the theory that they are entitled to every “right” under the sun, but want those rights without responsibilities.
With abortion on demand already in New Zealand, it makes me wonder why people are even bothering to push for free whatever-this-pill-is-called.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Rx
Its a very fine point you are trying to make, I think.
The fact is, the pill is being taken after the event. That’s the critical point. The intention is to terminate a pregnancy.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Bob R
You have completely missed the point, it’s not contraception. Contraception is the prevention of conception, this is allowing conception to occur and is chemically inducing a miscarriage. Look I’m not an anti abortionist, I firmly believe it’s every womans right to choose what lives in her body and if she wants to shoulder the responsibility of a child/children or not. However pregnancy is one issue from unprotected sex, diseases are another. Allowing for wholesale use of the MAP encourages a less responsible attitude to safe sex. Pregnancy is not a problem, take the magic morning after pill – why use a condom when you can just chow the medicine the next morning.
Sure the MAP should be available, but it should be treated like any other restricted medicine so that health workers can do their job and educate toward a situation where it’s use is the rare exception and not some sort of magical cure for being out of control again and again.
It’s good to hear from Rx, it’s good to hear that pharmacists (most I’m sure) take this seriously. But really there is limited benefit of a lecture to a teenager who thinks the 5 minute lecture is a minor cost compared to taking no responsibility for their own or their partners sexual health.
Cactus Kate also made a good point, it’s not just the womans responsibility. However if woman were a bit firmer about the “no glove no love” message then we wouldn’t be debating this.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Bob R
When I was a teenager I was fortunate that one of my mates parents use to keep a large box of condoms stocked up in the bathroom. My mates mother made it clear to all of us that we were welcome to take them for ourselves, but did ask us to not waste them blowing them up and being idiots with them. I reckon my mates mother stocked possibly 5-8 guys with condoms for about 5 years. Interestingly during this time none of us hormonally driven sexually active teenagers had issues with either STD’s or pregnancy, unlike many in our wider peer group.
It’s this sort of thing that needs to happen, parents need to teach these values, the concept of respect and responsibility for yourself and respect for others. Any teenager (male or female) running around with the hormonal desire to root anything that’s willing should have condoms in their pocket, it really is that simple.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Dear Clapped Out Kate
I certainly understand my gender. Many of them are nice. Some of them are unfortunate, Aspergers-like lab technicians. Many are also sleazy winebags for whom nothing is more interesting than getting a woman into bed and then pissing off.
It is the last group that you obviously have the most experience with. Which is a shame. Perhaps if it was suggested to woman that they are worth so much more than a quick shag, then things might not be so bad. But of course, the malicious woman’s libbers over the last 40 years have put other ideas into young womans heads. Like putting contraceptives into the water…
Just because ones own behaviour may require a quick trip to the pharmacist, doesn’t mean that its right, or good for everyone else.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
MrTips
Who are you to edit Cactus Kate’s lifestyle, I took her post to mean something entirely different perhaps.
Where she said:
I read that as….
And remember that behind every demand for the morning after pill is a MAN THAT DIDN’T WEAR A CONDOM so it does affect men directly.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Regarding the MAP as an abortion pill comments:
Fertilisation may not even have occured by “the morning after” (remember sperm can survive 8 days!!)(and eggs only about 48 hours!!) The woman does not know whether or not she is pregnant or going to be pregnant soon, and taking it is really more of a “just in case fertilisation does occur” scenario, by inducing a period to prevent embedding of a fertilised ovum etc… I’d steer short of calling it an abortion pill for those reasons.
But I do disagree with making it too easily available – there are definite benefits in a GP knowing your clinical history. Also I believe in taking responsibility for your actions, and there are much better ways of preventing pregnancy, (I’ve never believed in mucking around with hormones – personally)
Someone earlier mentioned free condoms instead – not as sexy at the time, but they prevent all the STD’s that create infertility later on – something else to consider.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Burt
I have no need, or wish, to edit Kate’s lifestyle – she parades it on her blog.
My point is: Woman deserve more than the current crap peddled to them that sex is all fun
and no responsibility for men. Giving free MAP to children will only reinforce the crap.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Cactus Kate
Which areas of the country do you suggest, and why?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
“Someone earlier mentioned free condoms instead – not as sexy at the time, but they prevent all the STD’s that create infertility later on – something else to consider.”
That is simply not true. The sexual revolution started with the pill as condoms were unreliable in preventing pregnancies. They are also unreliable in preventing STDs. if one is determined to have sex with someone who they have no idea of their sexual health status it is of course better to use a condom. Hopwever, it is far safer to only have sex with someone you are quite sure does not have any STDs.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:43 am
What a collision of points of view here.
Some seem to take the view akin to “Airbags are unnecessary. Seatbelts should be sufficient. If you crash, the belt fails and your head is to collide with the windscreen then so be it. You shouldn’t have had the accident if you weren’t prepared for the consequences.” (excuse the analogy)
If you think that there is no such thing as an accidental (ie: unplanned and possibly unwanted) pregnancy then you must be of the view that sex should be reserved for the sole purpose of making babies (not for pleasure). You probably also think that condoms never break, the contraceptive pill is never forgotten, etc. You are also anti-homosexual (by logical deduction). I can’t reason with that point of view.
I have two well loved (and well funded) kids. There have been times in the past 20 years when a happy family would not have been the result of an “unplanned arrival.” On one occasion the MAP was sought and used. Timing is critical. Waiting for a GP (an endangered species in NZ nowadays) is not always an option.
I think Danyl’s pragmatic angle is spot on.
Cactus’ water supply idea has definite appeal. Before you start asking for implementation details please go and look up the meaning of ‘tongue-in-cheek’.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Jim Jim Jim.As a parent what is your moral view? Traditionally we believed that sex was invented by God but reserved for marriage. This still seems to me to be a smart way to go. It is God’s idea, it means any pregnancies are not a disaster because Mum and Dad are married and therefore expect to look after any children that ensue from the union.
Sadly these technical solutions, like morning after pills, erode personal responsibility and sensible morality. In a society where people waited till they were married before having sex then the need for morning after pills, abortions, teen pregnancy counselling, venereal disease clinics etc would be almost non-existent.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Jim, I assume you are replying to my post. If so I suggest you reread mine. I have not suggested condoms should not be used. My point is that unreasonable reliance should not be put on condoms. That is like saying if I use seatbelts and airbags I can speed and drive drunk.
Let me give you another analogy. I have heard a lot of people suggest that skid pan practice would help reduce the accident rate of young inexperienced drivers. Many other people would think it would no the exact opposite. Knowing how to get out of a skid is good but it is better not to get in a skid in the first place.
You have two children. How would you feel if conservatives got into a position of power and taught your kids that abstinence is the best answer and the homosexuality is a perversion?
Many parents believe that schools should stick to teaching reading and writing and leave parents to teach their children what is right and wrong.
I am not anti homosexual. However, I am against the homosexual lifestyle being promote with my taxes particularly to children.
BTW – do you have any idea of the reliability or unfeasibility of condoms?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Chuck, I wasn’t replying to your post. I was reacting to some earlier posts which seemed to suggest that “if you’re going to have sex then you should accept the consequences.” seeming to imply that the ‘morning after pill’ should not be available at all.
I also believe that people are responsible for the results of their own actions – and should accept that responsibility. I’m also pragmatic. Accidents happen. Even careful people are capable of making mistakes.
Unfeasibility of condoms? I think they are very feasible. I don’t have any statistics but I can say that they can break (albeit rarely). On that point I have personal experience.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Teens are always going to have sex, and as a completely natural thing why shouldn’t they? (dated, religiously-derived moralities aside…) So surely it is sensible to make available whatever is the best means of dealing with the consequences?
I understand that the visit to the Doctor to get the morning after pill is instructional on many levels; I was a more sensible teenager who took precautions so I can’t say I ever had that experience!
May 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Scott.
Absolutely right.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I am a teen that is pregnant. I think (my point of view) that things like the morning after pill will give the mentality of saying things like “Oh well I will just get the morning after pill”; taking the pill should be seen as a last resort not first sorta thing.
Before this you could make an appointment with family planning or a doctor and they would give it to you – at least you had to see someone that made you think about what you are doing and it was free for those under 22 or something.
If you get pregnant as a teenager try and deal with it; talk to your family. Any family should will try to be supportive no matter what. It isn’t the end of the world.
I just think that it didn’t need to be available at pharmacies because it was already easy to get; buy going to a clinic or doctor made you think about your actions and consequences.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Jim, according to the Ministry of Health condoms are 80% effective in preventing HIV infection. They are less effective in preventing other STDs. As I said in my earlier post the sexual revolution started with the pill.
I am not opposed to the ECP but am against it being given to under age girls without their parents knowledge. In many cases a serious criminal offence could have occurred if the male involved was considerably older. We have seen a case of this and the police have done nothing. This change will make these cases much easier to go undetected.
RRM, teens can be from 13 to 19. If you are referring to older teens many used to get married and have children 30 to 40 years ago. If you are refferring to under age children you would find many in the Labour party agree with you.
caitlyno123, it is a shame more teens were not as sensible as you.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
One word event that proves this untrue – Parachute…The number of people (most unmarried) who get pregnant at this event is laughable, and I would suggest comparable to the non Christian population.
Can I get some sort of reference for this, or a study that backs up your absurd claims? You later state that you’re against all religion, so I’m just going to dismiss this wildly unattenable comment as another bigoted remark.
You can be moral and do the right thing without referring to scripture.
Yes, you can. But then what’s ‘moral’ or the ‘right thing’, then? Scripture may not be the answer you’re looking for, but for most people in the world the bible is an excellent source of an ultimate moral good, from which all other actions can be judged. I think you’re just afraid that you’d fall short.
If people are serious about addressing teen pregnancy, dpb numbers and child poverty then they should support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.
Contraception has been around for over 20 years, and all we have seen is higher pregnancy rates, more abortions, an ever-increasing epidemic of AIDS and more viral STDs. When are we going to stop and think of a better option? Obviously things are not working. Flooding the boat isn’t going to stop it from sinking.
Any initiative which removes a barrier to people accessing services, such as cost, is to be applauded.
Even when these services promote sexual relations among under-age children and encourage them to, not only hide it from their parents, but take a pill (with proven negative side-effects) which could end their ability to reproduce later on? Smart thinking, OwhiroLady. Someone elect this one.
It will help those people who can’t be seen at Family Planning or find the $35 or $40 too expensive.
What are we teaching our kids? If you’re going to have sex, theres a definite chance that one of you is going to get pregnant. It’s a fact of life. If you find $35/40 too much, then don’t have sex. If you can’t afford to buy contraception, then how on earth can you afford to have children?
They won’t because this Government and many of its supporters subscribe to the theory that they are entitled to every “right” under the sun, but want those rights without responsibilities.
Totally agree, Scribe.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Hey guys- I know I’m coming into this discussion late, but quite frankly I only check this site very rarely.
I am quite frankly astounded that so many men commenting here are completely dismissive of the views of the women in the thread. You are not the people directly effected by the morning after pill, so a little consideration of the views of those who are instead of rude and sexist dismissal would be appropriate in this kind of situation. It might be that they are wrong, but they are also likely to be much more personally experienced than you are on this subject- not to mention it is essentially control over their uteruses that you are debating. I think giving them at least an equal say is highly important.
I agree that it would be a bad thing if the morning after pill were seen as a safe and convenient contraceptive back-up. (it’s not intended as such. It’s called “emergency contraception” for a reason- it’s for emergencies!) I agree that in principle it can abort conceived zygotes if taken very late in the time window of its effectiveness- although it is also quite likely that it will simply prevent conception altogether by inducing menstruation before fertilisation actually occurs- part of the reason it is referred to as a contraceptive. Although for some people this will be a “grey area” morally, it’s about the lightest shade of grey you’re likely to get on reproductive rights. There is no violence involved- essentially this is akin to cessation of life support for a terminal patient, except that a zygote can’t think or feel in any physical sense. It is only recognisably human by its DNA. Whether it has a soul and what consequences that has is a matter that I don’t think you’ll ever get a significant portion of New Zealanders to agree on, and frankly- I think thoughts, feelings, and social responsibility are far more important. And I don’t see how you can dismiss the idea of allowing women the ability to opt out of pregnancy in an emergency based on those grounds.
Frankly, when a woman is stressed with the risk of an unwanted pregnancy- isn’t it better she gets a pill than an abortion? Isn’t it better that we make that pill more readily available, and then teach young girls about why it’s not a good idea to rely on it for anything but emergencies during comprehensive sex education, including abstinance and sexual responsibility? You blokes here seem to be very keen on responsibility. I would say that avoiding unplanned and unwanted pregnancies is an important element of social responsibility, too.
I’d also like to point out that for many women, they don’t necessarily know of family planning, it’s not immediately accessible for them especially in an emergency, or they have been raised in an environment that makes them extremely anxious at the possibility of being seen in such a place. Making the pill available in a neutral, easily available, and health-oriented place like a pharmacy, with no questions asked and without the worry of making a purchase and disposing of a receipt or having to explain an early-morning credit card charge to an overbearing relation, will make emergency contraception a real option for some of the more vulnerable women in the country. And this initiative will make a real difference for those women if they happen to live in Auckland.