B. Jindal says birth control pills should be available OTC

[Puppycow]

A step forward!

http://www.newser.com/story/159323/jindal-birth-control-should-be-over-the-counter.html

(NEWSER) – Bobby Jindal has people talking today, thanks to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he endorses making birth control available over-the-counter to anyone 18 or older. "We have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend … that Republicans are somehow against birth control," he writes. "That's hogwash." Jindal couches his argument in classic conservative language. Why do women need a prescription to buy the pill? "Because big government says they should," he writes.

He also argues that an over-the-counter approach would obviate the need for employers with religious objections to provide it and foster competition that would drive down the price of birth control. "It's time to put purchasing power back in the hands of consumers—not employers, not pharmaceutical companies, and not bureaucrats in Washington." The big question: Will the right embrace Jindal's argument? New York points out that several conservative groups decried the idea when a major OB/GYN group proposed it last month, with one calling it "wrongheaded and disturbing."

Will the right embrace his argument though? Since a lot of them recently came out against the idea.

 

[leftysergeant]

Scratch Bobby J from the list of likely candidates for POTUS 2016.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I think that the biggest issue as far as I'm concerned is a medical one in that there are varying strengths of BC and you really need to go to a doctor to figure out which one is right for you and that it's a good idea to monitor your hormones over time to know when you might need to change the dosage. I'd really hate to see a huge jump in ovarian cancer or whatever in 10-20 years because people are overdoing it or a rise in unintended pregnancies because the dosage is too low.

From a non-medical perspective though I'd be fine with it.

 

[Halfcentaur]

It's always puzzled me how much more intrusive GOP big government is than the social programs of the left supposedly are. The left is mostly just an issue of spending while the right actually wants to control and limit the choices you make in your life from a moral framework, while the right presents their issues with the left's spending as if it's actually the one who wants to limit the choices in your life.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The only problem I would have with the pill being sold OTC is whether there's going to be a spike in STDs as people use the pill instead of condoms. But you can only do so much to protect people from their own stupid, so on their own penises and vaginas be it.

 

[Joey McGee]

STDs are totally worth it. Can't you just take another pill to get rid of them? Right.

 

[leftysergeant]

Bobby has given up on dictating morality on this point, and there is a buck to be made selling pills.

If those harlots need to go to a doctor, they will probably want us to pay for the office visit.

Just doing it OTC is pure profit.

 

[hgc]

STDs are totally worth it. Can't you just take another pill to get rid of them? Right.

Some, not all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just doing it OTC is pure profit.

How do you figure? Consumers are price sensitive to OTC medication in a way that they aren't with prescription medication, so they'll shop for lower-cost pills. Unless you're saying that significantly more people will start using the pill - but I thought that was what you wanted.

 

[Mark6]

Scratch Bobby J from the list of likely candidates for POTUS 2016.

Maybe, but not necessarily. Since right after the election Jindal has been repackaging himself -- remember his line that "GOP must stop being party of stupid"? He must have figured out that moving to the center is the only way a Republican can win the election. If the rest of Republican party comes to same conclusion, he may well have a shot in 2016 -- at both nomination and election. If not, then you are correct -- and GOP will lose again.

 

[hgc]

Maybe, but not necessarily. Since right after the election Jindal has been repackaging himself -- remember his line that "GOP must stop being party of stupid"? He must have figured out that moving to the center is the only way a Republican can win the election. If the rest of Republican party comes to same conclusion, he may well have a shot in 2016 -- at both nomination and election. If not, then you are correct -- and GOP will lose again.

The one bona fide exorcist in the field of potentials, and he's the one doing the time-to-talk-non-crazy shtick. Gotta love it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe, but not necessarily. Since right after the election Jindal has been repackaging himself -- remember his line that "GOP must stop being party of stupid"? He must have figured out that moving to the center is the only way a Republican can win the election. If the rest of Republican party comes to same conclusion, he may well have a shot in 2016 -- at both nomination and election. If not, then you are correct -- and GOP will lose again.

Have you ever seen the GOP throw any loser under the bus, aside from Mittens? Do they really look that ready to admit that they screwed up? Do you really think they are ready to throw the ridiculously religious under the bus?

In the afterglow of Obama's victory, James Carville comparted the GOP to a stubborn bumpkin, saying, "Some times you gotta beat that boy up side his head with a two-by-four to get his attention, and this election was the sound of pine meetin' bone."

I think Carville over-estimated the ability of the hard-core of the GOP leadership to learn a lesson.

And we still have the Koch roaches and their money to consider. They really don't like people who will think for themselves, rather than letting ALEC do that part for them.

 

[Ladewig]

he may well have a shot in 2016 -- at both nomination and election.

You are not the only one considering that possibility. Jindal birtherism has already started.

 

[Brainster]

I don't know any Republicans who are opposed to access to birth control. Forcing other people to pay for it, yes.

 

[Cleon]

I don't know any Republicans who are opposed to access to birth control. Forcing other people to pay for it, yes.

Rick Santorum. There are people who really, truly think like him.

 

[Cleon]

Anyhoo, good for Jindal. It takes guts to go take a stand against both a large component of his party and the official stance of his church. (Jindal is a converted Catholic.)

Maybe someday he'll be able to figure out what "volcano monitoring" might be. (Whenever Jindal's name comes up as a potential Presidential candidate, my mind always goes back to that speech. I think to myself, "there's no way this putz has a chance." Then I remember George Bush, and I get a sad.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know any Republicans who are opposed to access to birth control. Forcing other people to pay for it, yes.

Because abstinence only education is an idea with no supporters your universe. The real world is a bit different.

After all what is abstinence only education but an attempt to prevent people from using birth control? And it is demonstrably effective.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

From a non-medical perspective though I'd be fine with it.

Ditto.

But you were right to point out that these are DRUGS that may require proper dosing and monitoring for both safety and effectiveness.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I don't know any Republicans who are opposed to access to birth control. Forcing other people to pay for it, yes.

But it's fine to (for insance) force a pacifist to pay for the DoD? Or a person who morally objects to the death penalty to psy for state sanctioned executions? I could go on, but maybe you get the idea here?