Morning-After Pill Bill [Passed]

[Sam Spade]

Morning-After Pill Bill

1. Any regulations requiring a prescription to obtain emergency contraception are hereby repealed.
2. Any restriction on the basis of age on the availabity of emergency contraception is repealed.
3. All hospitals will be required to dispense emergency contraception to fertile, female victims of rape regardless of the religious affiliation of the hospital or medical care provider.
4. Clause 3 shall not be construed as to mean that any rape victim or any other person will be required to use emergency contraception.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)

[Sam Spade]

bumping for more discussion...

This, of course, will be another piece of legislation to which I will challenge its constitutionality.

[Verily]

I'm not sure how this bill could be construed to violate the establishment clause. Religions may impose their views (as do not violate other rights) on their own followers, and that right is protected from infringement by the state, but religions do not have the power to impose their views on those who do not follow the religion or those who follow the same religion but disagree with its fundamentals. This includes the administration of the morning-after pill; it may only be denied in such a case as both parties believe it to be a religious violation, else one's religion is impeding on another's public life.

[Ebowed]

Currently, a woman cannot obtain emergency contraception without a prescription, and underaged women need not only a prescription but authorization from a parent before using the morning-after pill.  If people agree that it is desirable to reduce the overall number of abortions performed, surely they can agree that removing cumbersome restrictions on emergency contraception is a good idea.

[minionofmidas]

Is the current state of affairs federal law?

[Peter]

The (real world) ban on over the counter emergency contraception flows from FDA regulations. These presumably have their statutory grounding in the Controlled Substances Act (though I don' know for sure).

[Sam Spade]

I motion for an amendment to strike Clause 3 of this legislation.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I motion for an amendment to strike Clause 3 of this legislation.

You need to strike Clause 4 at the same time, since it exists only to clarify Clause 3.

[Ebowed]

You need to strike Clause 4 at the same time, since it exists only to clarify Clause 3.

Well, the purpose of obstructionism is to draw out the debate for as long as possible, so I assume that amendment would simply come later.

[Sam Spade]

Clarified.

I motion for an amendment to strike Clause 3 and Clause 4 of this legislation.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

For the record, I do support the bill as it currently stands, though I am curious about Senator Spade's constitutionally-based objections.

[Sam Spade]

For the record, I do support the bill as it currently stands, though I am curious about Senator Spade's constitutionally-based objections.

I always keep my objections close to the chest, unless I think they are obvious to any neutral-based observer (e.g. not opebo).

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment.

I motion for an amendment to strike Clause 3 and Clause 4 of this legislation.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Hatman 🍁]

Nay

[Verily]

Nay

[afleitch]

Nay.

[Јas]

Tally on Sam's Amendment
Aye: 2 (Sam; Brandon)
Nay: 4 (Ebowed; Earl; Verily; afleitch)
Yet to Vote: 4 (Al; Lewis; Moderate; Rob)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Abstain

(have a slight concern over a small part of s.3, and this amendment won't pass anyway)

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[Јas]

With 5 Nays and 1 declared abstention, the amendment fails.

Result on Sam's Amendment
Aye: 2 (Sam; Brandon)
Nay: 5 (Ebowed; Earl; Verily; afleitch; Lewis)
Abstain [Voted]: 1 (Al)
Abstain [Didn't Vote]: 2 (Moderate; Rob)

[Sam Spade]

I motion for an amendment to add a new section (5) to this bill with the following language:

5.  The Federal Government shall fund $5 million to the Department of Health to study the health effects of the morning-after pill over time on women who have used the morning-after pill more than once during their lifetime.

[Ebowed]

I motion for an amendment to add a new section (5) to this bill with the following language:

5.  The Federal Government shall fund $50 million to the Department of Health to study the effects of the morning-after pill over time on women who have used the morning-after pill.

I would argue quite strongly against this amendment.  Firstly, this investment is extreme pork barrell spending-- this is more than is currently being funded for all sorts of valuable medical, social and scientific research.  Secondly, a woman will not take the morning-after pill on a regular basis; most who use emergency contraception usually only use it once.  Thus, there is no measurable "effect" for this grant to actually study.  As there are no reported cases of women overdosing on emergency contraception, I cannot see a rationale to fund such an expensive and seemingly partisan (against contraception) study.

[Sam Spade]

I have moved the spending on the amendment down to $5 million.  Moreover, I have added the word "health" in front of the word "effects".  I have also indicated that the studies should be of women who have used the morning-after pill more than once.

If the purpose of this bill is to basically encourage prevalent use of the morning-after pill, we should ensure that the morning-after pill does not have any adverse side effects that crop up over time which the drug companies or the FDA are unaware of presently, as has happened with numerous drugs in the past. 

Passing this legislation, which allows the morning-after pill to be sold over-the-counter without any restrictions of age, will certainly make use of the morning-after pill rather common in society, as the few people on this forum who have ever had sex with a woman using a condom would testify to.