(07-10-2018, 12:39 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(07-10-2018, 11:38 AM)pirkster Wrote: There's a free clinic within walking distance.

Free clinics may require an appointment and they typically screen clients by income level - a girl may need detailed accounts of her parents' income level to be seen.

And there is no reason for her to be seen by anyone.  The Academy of Obstetrics and Gynocology has a position paper saying that there is no reason to require a girl to be examined if all she wants is contraceptive pills, and no risk of problems due to taking the wrong amount.  There is no medical reason contraceptive pills should not be available over the counter.  Literally the only reason they are not is that none of the manufacturers have applied to the FDA.  They all feel like they can make more money when it's Rx only and most people get it with their insurance.

---

(07-10-2018, 10:54 AM)pirkster Wrote: I always baffled by those who believe "access" and affordable/free contraceptives aren't readily available.

They already are.  And have been.  For a long, long time.

Yet we pretend somehow "access" is blocked and are financially beyond reach.

Makes zero sense.  Do we just regurgitate the talking points as if they have any meaning any longer?  For most, it's absolutely free and has been (for a long, long time.)

There's no secret handshake, back alley black market, or second mortgage to leverage to obtain.

It's all readily available and easy to access.

A woman without medical insurance currently has to be examined ($150/year) and then fill a prescription ($30/month min).  That is affordable for most but not everyone. And the annual part of the deal isn't even necessary.

Thanks all for your input.  I'm beyond thinking kids & adults are going to abstain so I've moved on with the thought that there needs to be confidential access to the pill at no charge.  Hopefully, it gets tweaked in this manner so there's an offset to any supreme court decisions --- sounds like a win-win situation (although I know this topic of discussion could be debated over the next 5,000 pages so i'll end it here).

---

(07-10-2018, 09:11 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I think Trump will nominate Barrett when Ginsburg finally retires in a few years. The woman is 85 years old for crying out loud. How long can she go? The democrats hate when the constitution is interpreted as it was written.

I assume this is a joke.  The chick is as fresh as a daisy !!!  On a very interesting note, Poland has just made a change to push retirement to Age 65 with the direct thought of purging 27 of the 72 judges off of their Supreme Court --- very controversial right now.

---