57 percent oppose over-counter sales of morning-after pill to young

morning_after_pillThe following comes from an April 16 story on Rasmussen Reports.

A federal judge earlier this month ruled that the morning-after birth control pill should be available over the counter to children 16 and younger without a prescription.  Most Americans think that’s a bad idea and that parents should be involved in a contraceptive decision for children that young.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of American Adults favor making the morning-after pill available to children 16 and under without a prescription. Fifty-seven percent (57%) oppose the availability of the contraceptive for those that young without a prescription. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Mark from PA says:

    Where is the common sense here? Drugs shouldn’t be sold to children over the counter period. Children under 16 are below the age of consent when it come to sexual intercourse. We need to protect our kids. In New York they are considering banning the sale of cigarettes to those under the age of 21.

  2. Abeca Christian says:

    This is disgusting…shameful to even think that humanity has come to this.

  3. This is what happens when judges legislate from the bench. It is happening at every level of the Court system. Some judges are drunk with power.

    For the most part it is the fault of each VOTER.
    When we elect politicians who support evil such as abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, fornication, adultery, pornography, and forcing everyone to pay for contraception – these politicians appoint judges of like mind.

    If State Bishops’ conferences wanted to be of service, they would print a voter’s guide for all their States elections – for all elected persons including elected judges for the non-negotiables ONLY.
    (NO personal political opinions, or social engineering on the part of the conferences please. Much damage is done when they deviate in any manner from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.)

  4. Abeca Christian says:

    Only 57 percent? Wow that is horrible…why not the majority….its terrible…we are no longer having common sense or common decency here….

    and I also read from Natural News this headline…which I checked out to be factual as well, Natural News reports:

    (NaturalNews) Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal the Obama administration is actively marketing the federal food stamp program (SNAP) to illegal immigrants. A Spanish-language flyer obtainer by Judicial Watch says, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

    • Mark from PA says:

      Abeca Christian, I would hope that you would think that it would better for children to receive food stamps than be aborted by their mothers because they can’t afford to feed them.

      • Mark, California is advertising our food stamp program “Cal Fresh” to Mexican’s living in Mexico. The truth is that many of our government representatives promote the debasing of Christian morals and then make us believe that we have to have our money confiscated by them to pay for the fall out of their policies. I personally know of individuals who currently have a higher standard of living than they can afford because they leave the feeding of their children to American taxpayers.

        When the Church provides the charity, (by charity I mean that people freely give of their money or time to a church organization and that same church organization refuses to accept money confiscated from American taxpayers) they feed the soul as well as the belly. Not so with government programs.

        I personally find it repulsive to insinuate that we only have two choices when it comes to dealing with poverty: Abortion or Government Issued Food Stamps. If this is what we have digressed to, then our nation is truly without hope.

        I would challenge you to ask your same question, “I would hope that you would think that it would better for children to receive food stamps than be aborted by their mothers because they can’t afford to feed them.” but broaden the question to include the entire world’s population living outside our US borders. How would you answer the same question now? Furthermore, would you even be asking the same question?

        • Mark, I wonder would many of your ancestors be alive if their only option were “government food stamps” or abortion?

      • Abeca Christian says:

        PA I have gone over this type of subject over and over in the past….you still don’t get it do you. Stop mixing up my intentions to invalidate the real point here. It’s a sick tactic of yours every time you object to what I say by adding unjust things..of course I have no objection to helping those who truly need it and especially citizens of this country….but I am trying to make a point because it is you who does not get it, there are many families who struggle and who do not “qualify” to get help that should….I should know…I have a family too and I see the abuses that many others commit through using the system while the rest of us persevere and work hard for ours and even theirs. I don’t get it, how come those very same families can afford yearly vacations, luxury trips and still get government help? If I want to take a vacation, which is rare, we usually do more small road trips and usually charge it and make payments over time. But before we do that, we really have to think about it because it’s expensive. We have to have our priorities.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          PA I hope that your tax money is enough to pay to help others outside of the USA as well but wait, you live in PA not in California, where the cost of living is so high here, while you neglect our very own citizens who need it the most here. We need to take care of our own first. We would have to raise more taxes especially from the struggling middle class to also support others not from this country. I already donate to charities (when I can) that help other countries why would I keep enslaving my husband to more taxes just so we can also give free benefits to other countries.

          Our income does not stretch enough to help them also, especially when we are neglecting our own…we have mouths to feed too….maybe you can give us some of your taxes money to feed us too. See if you can stretch it.

          • Abeca, thank you for your strong stand here. Your words are backed up by Jesus himself in Matthew 17: 25-26:

            (When Peterl went home, Jesus spoke to him first and asked him, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings on the earth collect tolls or tributes? From their own subjects, or from foreigners?”
            “From foreigners,” he replied.
            So Jesus told him, “In that case, the subjects are exempt. )

            Many Catholics are following the false god of liberalism and call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then they turn around and call us sinners. But Jesus did predict that this would happen to those who follow him.

  5. Abeca Christian says:

    Another evil plot from the government is important news from Natural News article:

    (NaturalNews) A taxpayer-funded government task force has issued new guidelines that literally urge healthy women to take toxic cancer drugs “preventively” in order to allegedly decrease their risk of developing breast cancer. As recently promoted by The New York Times (NYT), these shocking new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have been issued despite a complete lack of evidence that the dangerous cancer drugs being recommended have any preventive efficacy whatsoever.

    Fortifying earlier recommendations from 2002 that encouraged both tamoxifen and raloxifene as so-called preventive breast cancer treatment, USPSTF now says that healthy women with either a personal or family history of breast cancer, or who are considered “high risk,” should consider taking either of the two drugs for at least five years, even though doing so could cause major side effects like blood clots or stroke. USPSTF is also now pressing doctors to being actively prescribing such drugs to their healthy female patients, and particularly those between the ages of 40 and 70.

  6. The government and the people will wait to see if children die or are harmed by long term side effects. This insane lunacy proves that our culture is fully in the darkness and control of the devil. Parents, where is the outrage! Speak up. Shout. Block this lunacy from the bench!

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      The latest news is in some ways is good because it says polls indicate that the American people fear their own government more than terrorism, that at least is a start in the right direction.

      Our Founding Fathers feared loss of our Freedoms more from Judicial Oligarchy than from Foreign Invasion!

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

  7. It is dangerous to sell this powerful drug to girls 16 and under. Has this drug been tested on young girls? Is it safe? At 16 and younger their bodies are not fully matured. Most drugs have some side effects. Do you trust a young girl to self-medicate? What if the girl decides that “if a litle is good, then a lot is better?”

  8. ALL parents must be outraged when any government tries to take away the rights and responsibilities of the Parents.
    Governments must not be permitted to use children as guinea pigs, to make pharmaceutical companies wealthy.

    CCC: “1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.”

    CCC: ” 2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.

    Catholic charities should not partner with any government.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      MIKE I am outraged and have tried what I can to vote correctly but it just seems that the liberals here in California have other priorities. I did my own fighting the good fight even in the public school systems but what got me more discouraged was being the only parent that cared to speak up. If only our Bishops would help be our voice too, a strong voice so that when we feel out gunned, that it would refresh us to continue on.

      I prefer to take action but I’m afraid I’m not getting any younger. Still am a young mum but I am feeling the years piling up….I have to now care for my own first….if the rest don’t care for their own, then I must at least protect my own… hopefully what we have thought them will help because the bad influences are far greater and our kids have free will. May God’s graces be upon them to resist this evil culture we live in.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.