Discussion for article #237095
Uh oh, a Republican said “it make sense” for something that does actually make sense. I hope he has good body armor on his back.
Now if my own State Legislature can get their bill back on track.
2 Likes
No doubt because he’s one of those northwestern “create our own white country” folks and hopes plentiful, easily accessible birth control will keep them darn brownies from multiplying so fast…or something…
(that’s what’s known as a Poe’s Law Grenade…don’t get caught in the shrapnel)
1 Like
The biggest concern that I would have in this bill, is the unintended consequence of moving BC from a prescription to OTC, and thus removing it from the ACA entirely. I.e. if the approval of this bill would make contraceptives easier (not needing a doctor) but more expensive (not covered by insurance co-pays or regulated prices), then I hope it dies in the OR Senate.
2 Likes
This is the way it is in the modern world. I was raised in Asia and way back in the late 70’s early 80’s we’d fly to HK and pick up our BC over the counter. I think it is that way in Europe as HK was still a British colony. The Philippines not so much, they outlawed BC long ago, thanks Catholic Church.
“For women to begin taking serious hormones with well documented side effects without a physical exam to me seems unwise at best,” she said."
I suppose if a girl/woman is predisposed t cancer, an exam is relevant but women have been taking birth control bills for 50 years. No doctor I know does a full physical exam or blood work before dispensing a prescription,
I mean, it’s probably best for the person to at least be monitored by a doctor as they begin taking the medication. People can go through several kinds of BC before finding one that agrees with them. But that doesn’t require the full-on pelvic exam at a GYN that’s the standard in most places in the U.S. Maybe there’s some middle ground. But I guess this way is best if the alternative is people not having access at all.
BINGO!!! The Repugs are making access more convenient for women who can afford it but out of reach, because insurance won’t cover it, for many of the poorer or young women who need no cost access most.
You know that whole goose and gander thing, Viagra and Cialis … OTC for them too and no more coverage. What? There could be side effects for the men?? Hmmm … these damn men need to keep their hands off women’s healthcare.
1 Like
Yes, unless the pharmacist’s prescription carries the same weight as a doctor’s prescription with the insurance companies.
The GOP men are pushing OTC so that it will no longer be covered by insurance and no longer affordable for many.
Cory Gardner will pursue this when hell freezes over. He just said it because he thought it would help him get elected.
…thus forcing poor women to carry children they don’t want to bear to term. Few things make Republicans happier than that.
1 Like
“Is there an unexamined assumption that expanded access to birth control is a good thing?” spokesman Todd Cooper asked.
Nope. It’s been examined pretty thoroughly examined, and the answer is yes, it is a good thing. Your skyguy’s voice on earth might not like it, but my Flying Spaghetti Monster encourages the use of meatballs just in case.
He added: “Will this encourage sexual activity on the part of young girls and boys? And what are the consequences of that?”
So, sex must have consequences? Oh, wait, only if it’s between boys and girls who want to be together, not between, say boys and men in black suits with white collars who take advantage of their positions of authority and confidentiality.
If pharmacists have the authority to prescribe contraceptives as well as to dispense them, there’s a pretty decent argument that they cannot be treated as if anyone could buy them OTC.
(I’m embarrassed to say this, but I have no idea whether the states can make drugs OTC or the only the FDA can do that. But states do have the power to regulate medical and pharmaceutical practice, so even if they can’t make them OTC, they can allow pharmacists to prescribe them.)