Comments on: Bobby Jindal Calls for Over-the-Counter Contraceptives

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:38:06 +0000

Kamilla - quoting your source, the IARC:

Because use of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives increases some cancer risks and decreases risk of some other forms of cancer , it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial, but a rigorous analysis is required to demonstrate this. This should be done on a country-by-country basis and also consider the effects on non-malignant diseases.

Perhaps they should be regulated like alcohol, with a minimum age?

By: Kamilla

Kamilla — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:09:05 +0000

Mr. Ingles,

Perhaps I should have compared them to Tobacco? After all, both are listed by the IARC as Class I carcinogens.

When a substance is recognized as a known human carcinogen, you can’t really claim there are legitimate medical disputes over safety.

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:53:13 +0000

Kamilla - first off, yeah, you're right, I shouldn't have listed a plant-based source. But lard's a perfectly good example, thanks.

Comparing OTC birth control to say, the free availability of lard (which makes for excellent pie crust) is a little like comparing sudafed to meth. Or Digoxin to Foxglove.

If oral contraceptives are as bad as you imply. But there are some medical disputes over that. You originally compared anabolic steroids to oral contraceptives - which is just as false a comparison as oral contraceptives to lard.

By: savvy

savvy — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:24:27 +0000

David Nickol,

There was discussion about remote material co-operation, that there are some thing our taxes pay for that we have not control over. The contraception mandate made it direct material co-operation by getting Catholic institutions involved.

This would fall under remote material co-operation to the extent that the burden falls on the individual.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:47:53 +0000

One major problem with his position – women need to see a doctor in conjunction with using artificial/chemical/hormonal birth control pills because they are not like Tylenol or some other relatively safe over the counter medicines. They can react very differently in different women. Some women have little to no side effects, some have serious and even life-threatening ones. What about counseling on proper usage (like not taking too many, what happens if you forget to take your pill every day, etc.)? This seems like a very bad idea just medically speaking.
The ethical considerations are important too (the consequences we have because of the whole culture of birth control used by non-married people), but “big government” is not the issue here!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:33:40 +0000

I think it’s accurate to say that the toothpaste is out of the tube regarding the legalization and mainstream acceptance of contraception. If we accept that, then we can look at ways of managing contraception use.

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, requiring a prescription for contraceptives actually has the effect of enshrining them as “important medical necessities.” It creates an aura of approval and even, perhaps, “sacredness” around them. A doctor’s prescription signals an approval from him or her that this drug is necessary. If we eliminate that requirement, we eliminate the chance for doctors to “bless” contraceptive use. Removing the Rx requirement could be a way of signaling that contraceptives aren’t really medicine at all.

And I think there is something to be said for the “big government” idea. The United States is one of only two countries in the world that require (through law) a doctorate for pharmacists. I think it’s pretty obvious that there are many drugs that pose no real heath risk, even if used improperly, yet require a prescription in order to support the power of health professionals. And the converse is true: you can easily kill yourself by consuming an entire bottle of Tylenol.

By: LC

LC — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:05:15 +0000

I think it’s obviously a bad idea to make oral birth-control over-the-counter. Their are scores of places where you can learn about the extreme side-effects many women suffer. It is commonly posited that the only reason oral male birth-control isn’t pursued (though initial attempts were promising) is that the vast majority of men would not put up with such a high price in side-effects (which would include, as it does for many women, decreased libido).
Having said that, it’s not like the doctors are really into restraint when it comes to prescribing birth-control. The only thing that keeps them from prescribing women a life-time supply are current regulations governing prescription medications.

By: Marc Joseph Sosnowski

Marc Joseph Sosnowski — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:04:43 +0000

Is Jindal joining up with Biden and Pelosi, and becoming Catholic in name only? That would be a shame.

The argument for or against contraception is not specifically about religion, though. It’s simply a matter of the refusal to acknowledge the necessary connection of sex with procreation. It does indeed exist, and there is a huge contraceptive industry which blindly demonstrates it.

Isn’t Jindal opposed to same-sex (so-called) marriage? Perhaps someone can point out to him that there is no legitimate way in a secular world to restrict it, as long as heterosexuals continue to likewise practice “sterile” sex.

Would that Jindal had the moral courage to pronounce the Truth. That’s what being a Catholic is about.

By: Felix

Felix — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:01:57 +0000

I do not believe it is against Church teaching for Catholic politicians to be politically tolerant of artificial contraception so long as they are not approving of it or directly funding. I would hope that Bobby Jindal consulted with a theologian or canon lawyer prior to coming to that position. St. Thomas Aquinas explained how it’s not government’s role to punish most sins. Contraception does not directly destroy human life. Protection of human life from direct threats is the proper role of government. It would certainly be good and ideal if contraception were once again universally illegal, but education and conversion of hearts and minds must precede it first. Until a significant majority of people stopped personally contracepting or at least opposed it, then it is imprudent to address it politically. Only formal cooperation in the evil is what must be avoided. However, I admit I am ignorant about the safety of birth control pills, in my opinion it’s best to require a prescription because not all women are healthy for it nor informed about its effects.

By: Luke Moon

Luke Moon — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:59:40 +0000

Plan B, which is basically a massive dose of the hormone used in daily birth control pills is offered OTC. Why not regular birth control? Jindal puts forth a good strategy and ultimately a good compromise. The only down side is not the pills, but the public policy/religious liberty argument this HHS mandate allows us to have. In the long run, all but the big Catholic orgs would cave to the mandate. The upside is that this puts Dems in the awkward spot of defending Big Pharma.
The culture war is such that we need to pick our battles and where we will position ourselves. Right now we are losing on this badly and Jindal’s proposal will give us much better position.