Was the federal court right to lower age restrictions on Plan B?
Picture if you will: a 17-year-old girl in a pharmacy, the morning after, not a little horrified by her current dilemma. Whatever transpired the night before—carelessness with a boyfriend, date rape, stranger rape—she now finds herself in a race against time to keep from getting pregnant. “Plan B, Plan B” she tells herself, scanning the shelves, remembering that this high-dose birth control can effectively block a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse (although it’s most effective within 24 hours).
Nearly all major industrialized nations have approved Plan B without restrictions for many years, recognizing it’s efficacy in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Now, thanks to Tummino vs. Torti, a recent judgment from the federal district court, the day will soon be here when 17-year-olds won’t have to get a time-wasting prescription for this perfectly safe contraceptive, once erroneously tagged as an abortifacient. Gone are the years of stonewalling and outright lies about the drug used by the Bush Administration to turn the FDA from a science-based to faith-based arm of the government.
The Tummino vs. Torti judgment exposes many “arbitary and capricious” acts masquerading as medical due diligence. With pressure from the White House, the FDA had stalled confirmation of Plan B’s OTC (over the counter) status for years, citing bogus safety concerns.
One particularly egregious tactic was when the administration claimed the OTC-switch advisory committee lacked a “balance of opinion”. ( I guess a cadre of medical and science professionals adept at research and clinical trials was a little too uniform.) Eventually, Right to Life ideologues with far less experience were tossed into the mix. Still, science won out and in 2003 the advisory committee voted 23-4 in favor of eliminating age restrictions on procurement of Plan B. That should have been the end of a long, hard fight, right? Wrong. The FDA rejected this advice, the only OTC-switch recommendation they rejected in10 years.
By approving the lowering of age restrictions on Plan B the court simply recognizes that 17-year-olds with the wherewithal to connect a reckless night with preventative measures deserve our support. What they don’t deserve, even if their judgment often falls short? A bunch of political kowtowing dressed up to look like best-practice medicine.
Was the federal court right to lower age restrictions on Plan B?
Picture if you will, the fact that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, people will actually believe it. Andy perpetuates the “politics prevented Plan B” myth repeated in loaded news stories. Since when did news reporters stop fact-checking? Silly question, I know.
The 2003 FDA advisory committee, stacked with leftover Clinton appointees, was the one putting politics over science. The FDA must be sure a drug is both effective and safe for its proposed usage, and Plan B has never been proven safe for over the counter use – especially for minors.
Plan B is the same drug as the regular birth control pill – which requires a prescription – only 25 times stronger! Since medical reasons (like avoiding blood clots) require taking the low-dose pill only under a doctor’s care, Bush officials were right to overturn the advisory committee’s blithe, unprecedented assurance that the turbo version would be fine without one, thank you. It was the only such case in10 years because it was the most absurd, unscientific decision in10 years.
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, testified at that advisory committee meeting (“ground zero” she said in our interview), and explains, “there are activists and advocates for the drug on the committee,” not just the impartial scientists Andy believes.
Today, conservative warnings about Plan B have come to pass, and OTC nations like the U.K. have seen the inevitable consequences: women taking it 40 times in a row, schools giving it to 11-year-olds like candy, and health officials warning of serious health complications such as infertility. Federal District Judge Korman ignored all that, relying on incorrect information instead. (Maybe he’s been reading the news, too…) Wright pointed out, “His decision said Plan B would be 89 percent effective and decrease abortions – the same thing advocates originally said to get it OTC! Yet even prominent advocates of Plan B and medical journals now say it does not reduce pregnancies and abortions.”
Parents should be furious with a judge undermining their oversight and their girls’ safety based on a myth. “Teenagers,” Wright says, “still need a parental signature for tanning beds and field trips, but not to get a high dose hormone drug, with serious side effects.”
That is politics, not best-practice medicine.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
319 comments Add your comment
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
9:15 am
“Today, conservative warnings about Plan B have come to pass, and OTC nations like the U.K. have seen the inevitable consequences: women taking it 40 times in a row, schools giving it to 11-year-olds like candy”
I don’t know where Shaunti gets her information, but the above couldn’t be further from the truth (giving it to 11-year-olds like candy??? on what planet? cuz it sure as heck isn’t here in the UK) criminey, over the last 7 years, it’s only been distributed just over 1,000 times in clinics – and she thinks it’s being handed out like candy???
oi! Shaunti!! here’s a novel idea – how about citing your sources for the women using it > than 40 times and the shoolchildren … cuz, speaking as a person who lives in the UK, it sounds like you’re making it up …
Gale
May 8th, 2009
9:32 am
Here is a novel idea. I am required to buy psuedophed from a pharmacist – and sign for it. Why not put Plan B behind the counter? The then clerk could be certain the woman hears the potential, if rare, health risk, even if she fails to read the package label. The down side of that (up side if you happen to be anti-choice) is that embarrassed teens may not ask for the drug until it is too late.
Thanks for setting the record straight about Plan B use in the UK.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
9:33 am
First to say FIRST
American Woman
May 8th, 2009
9:34 am
Yes. The federal court was right to allow young women to protect themselves. Before any of you self-righteous indignants launch into the usual rant about sexual morality and keeping one’s knees together, please visit RAINN dot org slash statistics. STUFF happens, and it usually happens to women. Until you can change THAT reality, your comments on this subject have limited relevance.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
9:37 am
Thanks for changing the topic, lasts weeks topic sucked donkey balls!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
9:38 am
Sluts happen, not stuff AW!
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
9:38 am
USinUK
Girl, I like you. I think you are one of the smartest people here. We both like a lot of the same things. We have had some very good and yes, lively discussions about a lot of things. We snipe at each other almost like a sister and brother, but I believe there is a lot of mutual respect.
However, there is a poster that comes here that I believe is an instigator and has no lower boundary to what he says. We will be getting along fine, he comes along and all of the sudden, you are saying things at least as vile as what he is saying, and of course, i respond. When he says it, it doesn’t matter, I have no respevct for his opinion. When you say it, it does matter. I believe that is why he is as vile as he is.
I just don’t want to deal with that anymore. I will guarantee that if we started discussing things in a civil way, I’m pretty sure that he would be back immediately. So he wins. We can’t be friends.
I’m sure I’m due a lecture for writing this, and you will post lots of things I have said to others, (and you), but I am trying to improve. Mara once told me that I blow my credibility when i attack others. She is right.
it has gotten to the point that civility between us is completely dependent on someone that i have no respect for and who considers it a great victory when the two of you go on and on and on about perceived mistakes i have made. It immediately gets personal and i just don’t want to deal with that. Don’t waste your time looking up things I have said. It is not going to matter.
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
9:41 am
GtG –
I’m sooooooooo not talking to you!!! I posted a GREAT (and I do mean GREAT) pirate story day before yesterday and what did I get from you???? bupkis! not even an ARGH!!!
Gale
May 8th, 2009
9:47 am
I think Shaunti and Andrea needed to start seeing more posts to keep their blog on the net. Gay marriage and then abortion? Those two topics are sure to bring on a volley of posts.
As for the nitty-gritty of the age issue: By 17, most young women should be fully aware of the potential for pregnancy after unprotected sex. I believe we can trust them to realize they need help. Maybe, they will even consider accepting responsibility before acting if we treat them as more than children. Maybe, they will simply see that a condom is cheaper. That said, there will be some 17 year olds who still don’t understand this concept. Likewise, there will be many girls under the age of 17 who might need Plan B. We have to draw a line somewhere. I think the change is good.
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
9:54 am
TOJ -
look. here’s my thing:
1) nazis. like I’ve said before, everytime you pull a Godwin and start yelling jackboots/nazis/Goebbels, it’s incredibly offensive because you diminish what happened to the Jews, gays, gypsies and disabled during the 1930s and 1940s. WE GET IT that you don’t like the Democrats and the media. But using the ludicrously inflammatory language that you use really gets in the way of what you’re trying to say while insulting those who lost their lives to people who actually WERE nazis.
when everyone is a nazi, then no one is.
and 2) just plum making sh!t up. if you want to preface something with “I think” or “in my opinion”, then that’s one thing – but what happens is that you state stuff as fact that just ISN’T to support your thesis (like “every other president observed the national day of prayer”), I take the time to look it up and show you evidence that what you just said isn’t the case and either you ignore it or you say that I’m not arguing the issue or you change the subject.
(holding up my right hand) – I promise I will not use snide/snarky comments but you gotta meet me halfway and stop pulling stuff out of your butt and calling it the gospel. take a moment. google.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
9:59 am
Too much hate in the last blog, let me go back and check you out…
American Woman
May 8th, 2009
10:03 am
I can’t understand why anyone opposes comprehensive sex education for teenagers! Sometimes condoms DO break. If anything highlights the benefits of abstinence, it’s education. Abstinence IS the only way to prevent pregnancy, but it does little to protect someone who is forcibly taken. Some choose to engage anyway, and need to understand how condoms work, their effectiveness rates, back up contraception to use with condoms, and what to do the “morning after” something goes wrong. I can assure you, Plan B is NOT pleasant, and not something anyone would want to repeat. The idea that people behave irresponsibly because Plan B or abortions are “easy” have no idea what they’re talking about. FACTS, people. Get some, share some. Denial, delusions, and ignorance are simply not effective in a practical world.
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
10:05 am
UsinUk
You are missing the point. We have had lively discussions about everything you mentioned, but those don’t deteriorate into what happened last week. I don’t like comparing you to trash.
You can say what you want. We can call all the truces in the world. But as soon as that vile poster appears (and you know he will) any agreements we make are gone. There is no bond between us that supersedes the bond that you have with him. As I said: when he says it, it means nothing. When you say it, it means a lot. And the more I trust you, the more it does matter. So please understand when I say that I can’t trust you anymore.
If I don’t get back, today, have a good weekend.
You too, Gale.
American Woman
May 8th, 2009
10:12 am
Clarification at 10:03: I meant to say abstinance is the best, not the only way to prevent pregnancy. Obviously. Sorry I mistyped.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
10:12 am
AW, just because you slept with the Football Team, the Basketball Team, the XC team and most of the volleyball team in High School, doesn’t mean all of our daughters are so EZ!
just sayin’…
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
10:13 am
EXPAT! Nothing kewler than a pirate attacking a War Ship! No ARRRRRRRguement from me! Sorry I didn’t see it earlier, like I said, hate filled blog last week!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
10:15 am
AW, bet the boy at your High School are glad you didn’t abstain! Just sayin….
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
10:21 am
GtG –
I’m sayin!!! what’s Somali for “d-OH!!!”
American Woman
May 8th, 2009
10:30 am
Gandalf the Swine, the nasty things you say tell us more than we want to know about the state of your own love life, bless your heart. Do you talk like this in church when worshipping the Lord JC you claim to follow? No matter. The good news is, there’s never been a better time to buy a zippy little sports car to make up for it. Gotta feel that surge from somewhere… bless your heart.
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
10:33 am
TOJ –
“We have had lively discussions about everything you mentioned, but those don’t deteriorate into what happened last week. I don’t like comparing you to trash.”
well, so glad that you don’t LIKE calling anyone trash. would hate to think you ENJOY that kind of thing.
and that was AFTER I posted not only the opinion of the Federal judge and nationally recognized expert on war crimes, but THREE cases that supported waterboarding as torture (1 federal, 1 international, 1 military).
and your response??? telling me to eat *** and die. sorry, TOJ, but you can’t blame that on Jokes.
“There is no bond between us that supersedes the bond that you have with him. … So please understand when I say that I can’t trust you anymore.”
um. okay. and what response are you expecting to that? weeping? rending my shirt? keening? sitting shiva??
you compare my party to nazis. you call us racists and say that we’re trying to keep the black man down. you say that Democrats routinely get abortions for recreational purposes. and you repeatedly call me indoctrinated while you parrot right-wing talking points.
but, yeah. Jokes and I are the problem. got it. (eyes rolling so far back in my head, I can see my own spleen)
Gale
May 8th, 2009
10:47 am
Gandalf, I must have missed the hate spewing last week. Darn little mouse must have the scroll wheel set to auto upon seeing pointless negative comments. I though most of the commentary last week was quite civil, considering the topic. I hope comments stay civil this week since the topic is another controversial issue.
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
11:04 am
USinUK
I don’t care whether you cry or not. I was just trying to explain why I wasn’t answering you. When you start losing an argument, you jump on Jokes little attack wagon, just like you did last week. The torture question hasn’t been decided, accept in your own mind. And to be honest, the people that are losing their homes today because of the power hungry party that you support probably don’t give a sh!t.
The entire time I have been here when Bush was in the White House, there were no limits to what you would say, but I didn’t give a damn. I’m not G.W. Bush. But now that you are trying to defend an idiot leading idiots, it’s all personal. Grow up if you intend to discuss politics with people who don’t agree with you.
What I am telling you is that I like you too much to associate you with that piece of sh!t that you are all too quick to jump to his side. If you want to support trash, then expect others to associate you with that trash. But do not keep posting to me, expecting a response.
Get it?
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
11:11 am
AW! STFU! You slut!
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
11:20 am
USinUK
One other thing. If you think that I said to be careful not to eat s!t and die because you posted the names of judges or whatever, you are friggin’ delusional. For once, take responsibility for what you say to other people.
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
11:29 am
“The torture question hasn’t been decided, accept in your own mind.”
and in the federal court. and in the military court. and in the international court.
“And to be honest, the people that are losing their homes today because of the power hungry party that you support probably don’t give a sh!t.”
interesting. just a few months ago, you were saying that it was the homeowners’ fault for losing their houses – they were the ones who got mortgages they couldn’t afford … and now it’s the democrats’ fault. got it.
but, yeah. democrats don’t give a sh!t. we hate black people. we love terrorists. we hate America. we all want to get gay married. and we get pregnant just so that we can boogie down to the clinic for another abortion (hey!! one more and the next one is FREE!)
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
11:34 am
TOJ –
“For once, take responsibility for what you say to other people”
you mean when I said that I think the opinion of a federal judge who is a recognized expert in war crimes carries more weight than “the paltry party-apologist opinion of a camera-guy for hire”???
I still stand by that statement.
Wait...wait...
May 8th, 2009
11:39 am
If we all get gay married then we can’t have our get-knocked-up-and-then-have-an-abortion party. LOGIC FLAW!
Gandalf, the White! AKA "King of the Wild Frontier"
May 8th, 2009
11:39 am
EXPAT; I STILL LIKE TORTURE, IT’S FUN AND REWARDING! JUST WATCH JACK BAUER! WHAT IS NOT TO LIKE ABOUT TORTURING BAD PEOPLE…
Gandalf, the White! AKA "King of the Wild Frontier"
May 8th, 2009
11:40 am
WAIT…wait…EVER HEARD OF CHEATING? AW HAS!!
Gandalf, the White! AKA "King of the Wild Frontier"
May 8th, 2009
11:40 am
SLUT
Gandalf, the White! (AKA Big Johnson!)
May 8th, 2009
11:42 am
AW, TELL THE WORLD, YOU KNOW YOU WANT ME!
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
11:43 am
wait … wait …
“If we all get gay married then we can’t have our get-knocked-up-and-then-have-an-abortion party. LOGIC FLAW!”
darlin’, I think you’re doing something wrong at your big, fat, gay wedding reception …
Gandalf, the White! (AKA Big Johnson!)
May 8th, 2009
11:43 am
GALE, THAT WAS JUST MY POSTS FROM LAST WEEK!
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
11:45 am
(am not chuckling about Big Johnson … am NOT chuckling about Big Johnson)
Wait...wait...
May 8th, 2009
1:35 pm
Hell no, there will be no breeding at by big, fat gay wedding reception. After a couple of rousing renditions of “Deutschland, uber alles” and possibly a very fancy performance of “Springtime for Hitler”, we’ll move right into the glory hole and BGO (Big Gay Orgy) room.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 8th, 2009
1:59 pm
No matter what anyone says, do not go into the BGO room! Just sayin’!
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
2:10 pm
USinUK
remember this?
–– it carries more weight than the paltry party-apologist opinion of a camera-guy for hire. ––
Camera guy for hire? F*ck you.
And that was after post after post after post after post of singing songs and doing everything you could to avoid the question.
You set at a desk stealing time from your employer every day. Save your sanctimonious bullsh!t for someone stupid enough to believe it. If you act like a piece of trash, expect to be treated like a piece of trash.
Commentary
May 8th, 2009
2:25 pm
The AJC Woman to Woman Blog, teeming with the kind of smart, honest, integrity-filled men you can’t wait to bring home to Mother! Need relationship skills? Watch and learn.
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
3:52 pm
TOJ –
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
11:34 am
TOJ –
“For once, take responsibility for what you say to other people”
you mean when I said that I think the opinion of a federal judge who is a recognized expert in war crimes carries more weight than “the paltry party-apologist opinion of a camera-guy for hire”???
I still stand by that statement.
so solly cholly, but the statement is true – a man who is a federal judge and a national expert on war crimes has said that waterboarding qualifies as torture vs. someone who is on this board day-in-day-out with NO legal expertise, who shoots/edits video and who thinks that the GOP does no wrong … whose opinion do you think carries more weight??? hmmmm???
every word of that statement is true, diddums
And that was after post after post after post after post of singing songs and doing everything you could to avoid the question.
you mean like offering you not 1, not 2 but THREE examples of waterboarding being prosecuted as torture … yeah, there was someone avoiding the truth that day, but it sure wasn’t me.
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
4:09 pm
Commentary
So she lied about what I was responding to. She twisted what had been said to make her look like something she wasn’t: a civil poster. We weren’t dating. We were discussing politics on a political forum and she went nuts because she couldn’t prove what she said that she could. She posted lots of opinions, but no laws. She went hysterical with her low life friend actually attacking me for what I do for a living. And I’m supposed to act like someone she would want to take home to mother.
Do you live on this planet or is the internet now reaching out into space? Do women want equality or not?
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
4:22 pm
USinUK
So no response for your “camera guy for hire comment, huh?” Once again, you start selectively responding to what you can twist into something to your advantage. You acted like a spoiled brat who couldn’t get her way. So you started the crap with the imbecile like you have been doing at every opportunity.
Grow up.
BTW. Pelosi was busted today by the CIA for lying about not knowing about waterboarding. Now she is saying that she knew it was part of the policy, but she just didn’t know it had already been done. So it was illegal but the woman who was to be elected to be the leader of the US Congress gave it the Okie Dokie. Google that.
Pelosi Was Briefed on Interrogations » Intelligence officials released documents yesterday saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda suspects, seeming to contradict her repeated statements that she was never told the techniques were actually being used. — Washington Post
USinUK
May 8th, 2009
4:36 pm
TOJ –
“So no response for your “camera guy for hire comment, huh?””
“I still stand by that statement. so solly cholly, but the statement is true – a man who is a federal judge and a national expert on war crimes has said that waterboarding qualifies as torture vs. someone who is on this board day-in-day-out with NO legal expertise, who shoots/edits video and who thinks that the GOP does no wrong … whose opinion do you think carries more weight??? hmmmm???
every word of that statement is true, diddums”
what part of that seems to elude you???
“We were discussing politics on a political forum and she went nuts because she couldn’t prove what she said that she could”
no, I sang and danced because I proved myself repeatedly, both with expert opinion and court cases.
and, as for Pelosi – I say now what I said last week – ANYone who colluded should be prosecuted.
The Other Jack
May 8th, 2009
5:22 pm
USinUK
I directed my first television show in 1979. After a few years of boring local production, I went to news where I was a field producer and videograpgher. I moved to Atlanta in 1986. Since then, I have worked for almost every network in the US and many international networks including the NHK, Network 10 Australia, The ABC (Australia), TV Monte Carlo and two different shows and two documentaries for The BBC. I am also an award winning cinematographer and videographer. I have also been a media trainer for several different US companies, based in New York and Atlanta. and a consultant for CNN.
You work at a bank.
Wait...wait...
May 8th, 2009
5:37 pm
“Grow up. ”
As always, the irony of this statement is overwhelming.
Don't wait
May 8th, 2009
6:35 pm
Wait…wait…
She challenged his credibility. He answered. She didn’t know whether the sources she sited depicted a legal precedent and she had no more legal training than he had. I don’t know if he has done all those things, but it was a low blow on her part to question the credentials of another person on a political blog.
USinUK
May 9th, 2009
2:42 am
TOJ –
thanks for your CV — it further proves my point that the opinion of a guy who was a JAG and is now a Federal Judge and is nationally recognized as an expert in war crimes REALLY carries more weight than yours.
(and I don’t work for bank – nice try, though)
“She didn’t know whether the sources she sited depicted a legal precedent and she had no more legal training than he had”
nope, I have no more legal training than he has – BUT, I cited a Federal Judge who DOES as well as 1 international case, 1 military case and one federal case ALL of which said waterboading is torture, NONE of which were overturned or pardoned. while I never went to law school, that sounds like precedent to me.
The Other Jack
May 9th, 2009
6:07 am
USinUK
I asked you to prove that waterboarding is illegal. You sited a few opinions that is was. You never produced a single law or statute that said it was. The Congress of the United States is having a huge debate whether it is illegal, but according to you, that debate is unnecessary. They just need to talk to you. You will send them opinions of four people. That should do it.
If they don’t agree, you will start singing songs and attacking what they do for a living.
You live in England, one of the worst countries in the world that sponsors interrogation facilities all over the world. That is not during WWII. THAT IS NOW. During World War II, London had a little facility called “The Cage”. Google it.
USinUK
May 9th, 2009
6:26 am
TOJ –
“You sited a few opinions that is was. You never produced a single law or statute that said it was.”
wrong again, buck-o … I cited 3 cases (1 court martial involving a US soldier in Viet Nam, 1 federal case prosecuted under the Reagan DOJ and 1 international case) in which waterboarding was prosecuted successfully as torture. TORTURE is illegal – waterboarding was found to be torture in those cases – ergo waterboarding is illegal.
none of those cases were appealed. none of those cases were pardoned (not even by W)
THAT, my friendly, is legal precedent.
“If they don’t agree, you will start singing songs and attacking what they do for a living”
it has nothing to do with whether or not you AGREE, you challenged me to post legal precedent which I did, which you conveniently chose to ignore. you first chose to ignore the McCain quote because you said it was from 2007 and didn’t count – then we pointed out that it was from Feb. then, you chose to ignore the part of the quote in which he said that the Japanese were CONVICTED for waterboarding, saying his isn’t a legal opinion (”This is a statement by John McCain, hardly a legal opinion”).
so, then I pointed out that a JAG attorney said it is, to which you said “a statement from an attorney from JAG does not constitute a binding legal opinion” — to which I pointed out that “Evan J. Wallach is a federal judge of the United States Court of International Trade and one of the nation’s most foremost experts on war crimes and the law of war. He was decorated for his service during the Vietnam War. Wallach also served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the International Affairs Division of the Office of TJAG at The Pentagon during the Gulf War, where he assisted in advising on the law of war and investigating war crimes allegedly committed by Iraqi leaders”
and then further supported his opinion with 3 court cases.
to which you kept twisting in the wind and saying that their opinion doesn’t matter, the court cases aren’t legal precedent.
“twistin by the pool” just seemed appropriate. and still does.
and, yes, Wallach’s opinion STILL carries more weight than yours … and now THIS is the best you can come up with??? “You live in England, one of the worst countries in the world that sponsors interrogation facilities all over the world”
pathetic.
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
May 9th, 2009
8:54 am
Most conservatives are conservatives because of their inability to grasp even the most basic of legal concepts.
Might makes right for these morons. That’s just not the only law they know, it’s the only law they are capable of comprehending.
They’re stupid, disgusting, superstitious, obsequious, chicken-livered fools.
Billy
May 9th, 2009
10:47 am
TOJ, waterboarding is illegal because torture is illegal. Pretty much anyone who has endured it says it is, including our people who went through it as part of their interrogation training. We evidently considered it torture when we tried Japanese “enhanced interrogators” for using it on our men in WWII.
When you say there’s no law deeming it illegal you are using a bit of logical gymnastics. It’s like saying killing someone by stabbing him with a pool cue isn’t illegal because that particular means of death hasn’t been specifically outlawed. Or fighting a speeding ticket with the argument that while the speed limit may be clearly posted as 65, the law does not specifically ban going 82 in a 65.
Torture is illegal. Waterboarding is torture. You feel like you’re drowning. The terror it causes has the capacity to induce a heart attack. So, what your argument again? Torture is illegal, but this method of interrogation — making someone feel like he’s about to die, possibly actually killing him in the process — is perfectly legal?
And this all leaves out the fact that it’s ineffective. Were it so effective we wouldn’t have needed to do it 180 times to the same person. The person being tortured will say whatever he thinks will make it stop. The interrogators have no way of knowing if the information’s true or not. People will confess to things they weren’t involved with. They’ll give info that’s completely made up if they think the torture will stop.
Ineffective. Illegal. Immoral. It is and always will be. Regardless of how many “babies” have been killed through abortion.
Billy
May 9th, 2009
11:19 am
Oops…Italics FAIL…
As to the new topic, YES, lowering age restrictions was the right thing to do.
Yes, the pill requires a prescription. But perhaps that’s because it’s taken over a long period of time. Isn’t it possible that this higher dose of the drug is safe if taken only occasionally? I’m going to assume that the doctors studying the thing have decided that’s so.
And someone from the CWA saying that “there are activists and advocates for the drug on the committee,” not just impartial scientists? Really? The CWA is accusing people of being biased?
From CWA’s “about CWA” page on its web site:
“CWA is built on prayer and action.
We are the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 29-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”
Anything coming from the CWA is automatically suspect. If I remember correctly, a year or two ago Plan B was the topic for W2W, and Shaunti made an argument against it using a CWA talking point: Plan B may be used by sexual predators to cover up their crimes. That argument is so dumb it’s stoopid. It does prove one thing, though. The CWA (and most other opponents of Plan B) don’t care about the physical well-being of the person seeking it. They just want babies to be born as often as possible.
My favorite part of their site so far is in their statements on pornography. (They’re against it, by the way…)
“Child pornography has become prominent and is a gateway to harming children.”
Child pornography is a gateway to harming children? Funny…all this time I thought child pornography WAS harming children!
Wait...wait...
May 10th, 2009
1:06 am
“Child pornography is a gateway to harming children? Funny…all this time I thought child pornography WAS harming children!”
Only when planned or perpetrated by Democrats. When Republicans engage in child pornography, it must be – inherently – for the good of God and Country. In all probability, it’s likely to be a technique designed to expose those leftist Nazis (no matter how much an oxymoron that phrase may SEEM to be on the surface) for the evil racist, socialist Christian-haters that they are.
USinUK
May 10th, 2009
4:25 am
Billy, are you itallicly challenged?
happy sunday, everyone! gorgeous weather here (again!) today – stuff going on, so won’t be stopping by tomorrow – see you Tuesday …
Billy
May 10th, 2009
8:01 am
evidently so ???
Billy
May 10th, 2009
8:03 am
Aha!!! NOW I’ve got it, I think.
The Other Jack
May 10th, 2009
1:54 pm
Billy
There’s no gymnastics going on. It’ really pretty simple.
Laws in the United States are determined by our Federal Lawmakers which is Congress. As is what is making the news more and more, during a total of 80 different detailed briefings, members of the United States Congress were told over and over and over again about the fact that enhanced interrogation techniques were being used. Not that they might be used. Not that they will be used, but that they were being used at the time of the briefings.
Our country’s lawmakers, not Sean Hannity, not Rush Limbaugh, not even me were the people that were giving the approval over and over that these techniques were to be used. So our country’s lawmakers were saying that it was OK. And these instances are what we are referring to. Not the Japanease during WWII, not the Viet Cong, but the instances of use that occured by our intelligent officers after the 911 attacks on the WTC.
There is no amount of insisting that waterboarding is torture that is going to change these facts. You have every right to believe that it is torture and I have every right to believe that it is not. But what we or anyone else that posts here believes means nothing as to the legal ramifications of what took place.
So you can join others like USinUK in believing that the opinions of a few individuals or long forgotten court cases that happened well before 911 determines the legality of a specific act. I believe that our lawmakers, The United States Congress determines what is legal and what isn’t. It is not some sort of conspiracy where a few corrupt individuals approved this. Nancy Pelosi approved these acts along with dozens of other high ranking United States Officials. You can argue. You can fight. You can even lower yourself to behave like USinUK and attack the profession of people who disagree with you, but none of that changes the FACT that the people who determine the very laws that govern our country approved these acts.
Our Allies, particularly England and Israel are known for sponsoring interrogation centers all over the world Obama is now saying that Churchill would not tolerate torture, but it is a fact that if it weren’t for Parliament, he would have gassed the German civilian population. He understood what it meant to protect his country. Pelosi has now been caught in lie after lie about this. Believe what you want, but you are being fed a line of bullsh!t, Pal. I choose to think for myself and look at facts other than what is being fed to a very gullible American public by an extremely biased media.
Bruno
May 10th, 2009
2:54 pm
“the day will soon be here when 17-year-olds won’t have to get a time-wasting prescription for this perfectly safe contraceptive”
“Plan B is the same drug as the regular birth control pill – which requires a prescription – only 25 times stronger! Since medical reasons (like avoiding blood clots) require taking the low-dose pill only under a doctor’s care, Bush officials were right to overturn the advisory committee’s blithe, unprecedented assurance that the turbo version would be fine without one, thank you.”
Lib Logic is an amazing thing to watch at times. Take a drug with known side effects, which is available by prescription only, make it 25 times stronger, and–poof– all of a sudden it becomes “perfectly safe” to be dispensed to minor children with no prescription or parental notification required.
The real reason behind the push to make Plan B an OTC drug is simple: For whatever reason, no-consequence sex by minor children has become a sacred cow for the left. I mean, God forbid if the child’s parents were to become involved via notification by a doctor. Is it possible that having a sexual relationship may not be in the child’s best interests? Is it possible that intervention by an adult might positively influence the child to make better decisions? Even in the case in which the sex was not consensual (date rape, stranger rape), it still seems like it would be a good idea for an adult to know about it.
I’ll invite the Libs to make a case that the “privacy rights” of the teen outweigh all of these other concerns. Good luck.
The Other Jack
May 10th, 2009
3:02 pm
America, you are being lied to. The Obama administration is not even trying to tell the truth and will apparently say anything that comes to mind in an attempt to explain why they are putting our servicemen and our very lives in danger by politicizing the actions of men that swore to protect our country and not the comfort of our nation’s enemies.
from NPR:
At a news conference this week, President Obama evoked the name of Winston Churchill when he said the British Empire didn’t torture its prisoner during World War II. Ian Cobain is a reporter for the Guardian newspaper. He says the British actually tortured a number of prisoners during the war.
This is the actual article from The Guardian.
The secrets of the London Cage
· Beatings, sleep deprivation and starvation used on SS and Gestapo men
· POW camp in Kensington kept secret and hidden from Red Cross
* Ian Cobain
* The Guardian, Saturday 12 November 2005
* Article history
Kensington Palace Gardens is one of the most exclusive, and expensive, addresses in the world: its stately row of 160-year-old mansions, built on land owned by the crown, is home to ambassadors, billionaires and princes. One property bought by the Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal for a reputed £57m is said to be the most expensive house in London. Down the road, a pair of Manhattan tax lawyers are renovating No 6, while next door, No 7, is the London home of the Sultan of Brunei. Over the years No 8 has housed its fair share of dowagers and dukes.
Between July 1940 and September 1948, however, these three magnificent houses were home to one of the country’s most secret military establishments: the London office of the Combined Services Detailed Interrogation Centre, known colloquially as the London Cage.
The London Cage was run by MI19, the section of the War Office responsible for gleaning information from enemy prisoners of war, and few outside this organisation knew exactly what went on beyond the single barbed-wire fence that separated the three houses from the busy streets and grand parks of west London.
Years later Tony Whitehead, a consultant psychiatrist in Brighton, recounted in his memoirs how, as a young aircraftsman delivering a belligerent SS sergeant to the Cage, he was shocked to see a German naval officer in full dress uniform on his hands and knees, cleaning the entrance hall floor. An enormous Guardsman stood with one foot on the prisoner’s back, casually enjoying a smoke. When Whitehead collected his prisoner three days later, the man was completely subdued, rarely looked up, and addressed him as sir. “I do not know what had happened to him at the London Cage,” Dr Whitehead wrote.
By examining thousands of documents stored at the National Archives, formerly the Public Record Office, as well as the archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, the Guardian has established what happened to this prisoner, and many others like him.
The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.
The Cage was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland, a forceful, outspoken man deemed to have the perfect background. Although English, the colonel had served briefly in the German army in what is now Namibia shortly after the turn of the century, and was later awarded the OBE for his work interrogating German prisoners during the first world war. In 1939, at the age of 57, he was recalled for service.
The Cage had space for 60 prisoners at any time, and five interrogation rooms. Scotland had around 10 officers serving under him, plus a dozen NCOs who served as interrogators and interpreters. Security was provided by soldiers from the Guards regiments, selected, one archived document asserts, “for their height rather than their brains”.
Among the documents stored at the National Archives at Kew is the manuscript of Scotland’s memoirs. In his first draft he recalled how he would muse, on arriving at the Cage each morning: “‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here.’ For if any German had any information we wanted, it was invariably extracted from him in the long run.” There was pandemonium at the War Office when the book was submitted to be censored in June 1950. Officials begged Scotland to quietly lock the manuscript away, then threatened him with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. Special Branch detectives were sent to raid his retirement home at Bourne End, Buckinghamshire. The Foreign Office urged suppression of the book, as it would assist “persons agitating on behalf of war criminals”. An assessment by MI5 pointed out that Scotland had detailed repeated breaches of the Geneva convention, with his admissions that prisoners had been forced to kneel while being beaten about the head; forced to stand to attention for up to 26 hours; threatened with execution; or threatened with “an unnecessary operation”.
The book was eventually published after a seven-year delay, and only after all incriminating material had been deleted. It is now clear, however, that Scotland could have tried to reveal far more.
Within the National Archives are documents from two official inquiries into the methods employed at the Cage, one which heard evidence that guards were under orders to knock on some prisoners’ cell doors every 15 minutes, depriving them of sleep, and another which concluded with “the possibility that violence was used” during interrogations.
There is also a long and detailed letter of complaint from one SS captain, Fritz Knoechlein, who describes his treatment after being taken to the Cage in October 1946. Knoechlein alleges that because he was “unable to make the desired confession” he was stripped, given only a pair of pyjama trousers, deprived of sleep for four days and nights, and starved.
The guards kicked him each time he passed, he alleges, while his interrogators boasted that they were “much better” than the “Gestapo in Alexanderplatz”. After being forced to perform rigorous exercises until he collapsed, he says he was compelled to walk in a tight circle for four hours. On complaining to Scotland that he was being kicked even “by ordinary soldiers without a rank”, Knoechlein alleges that he was doused in cold water, pushed down stairs, and beaten with a cudgel. Later, he says, he was forced to stand beside a large gas stove with all its rings lit before being confined in a shower which sprayed extremely cold water from the sides as well as from above. Finally, the SS man says, he and another prisoner were taken into the gardens behind the mansions, where they were forced to run in circles while carrying heavy logs.
“Since these tortures were the consequences of my personal complaint, any further complaint would have been senseless,” Knoechlein wrote. “One of the guards who had a somewhat humane feeling advised me not to make any more complaints, otherwise things would turn worse for me.” Other prisoners, he alleged, were beaten until they begged to be killed, while some were told that they could be made to disappear.
At the time Knoechlein made these allegations he was facing the death penalty, having been convicted of the murder of 124 British soldiers, including 98 members of the Royal Norfolk Regiment. These soldiers had been massacred by men under Knoechlein’s command after being taken prisoner on the retreat to Dunkirk in May 1940. He was in a desperate position, and may have been making desperate allegations in a bid to escape the hangman. Nevertheless, his complaint was taken seriously by War Office officials, who considered whether to convene an inquiry. They eventually decided against this, on the grounds that this would mean delaying Knoechlein’s execution. There was no legal precedent for this, one official noted, besides which “any court of inquiry into these allegations would be futile”.
Similar torture allegations surfaced in 1947, and again the following year, when 21 Gestapo and police officers were tried for the murder of 50 RAF officers who had been shot after tunnelling their way out of Stalag Luft III, the breakout recreated in the Hollywood film The Great Escape.
The court in Hamburg was told that many of the defendants had been starved and systematically beaten at the London Cage, confined in the cold water shower, and “threatened with electrical devices”. Among the defendants was Erich Zacharias, a sergeant in the Gestapo’s frontier police. The only evidence against him was his confession which, MI5 noted in its assessment of Scotland’s memoir, had been signed only because “being a prisoner in their hands, he had been worked on psychologically”. Zacharias insisted that he had also been beaten. Twenty of the defendants were convicted and 14 were hanged, Zacharias among them.
It is impossible to discern, from the War Office archives, whether Scotland was regarded by this time as a maverick whose methods were to be quietly overlooked, or whether he was acting with clear, official approval. It is clear, however, by late 1946 there was “disquiet about his methods” being expressed at the headquarters of the British army of the Rhine.
By then the Red Cross was aware of the existence of the Cage, although only because its location had inadvertently been included on a list of PoW camps sent to the organisation. A Red Cross inspector called twice at Kensington Palace Gardens in March 1946 but was turned away. In a lengthy memo to the War Office, Scotland explained that he had identified the officer responsible for disclosing its location, and that this man had promised “that this blunder would not be repeated”.
Scotland went on to argue that the Red Cross need not be admitted, because his prisoners were either civilians, or “criminals within the armed forces”, and neither, he said, were protected by the Geneva convention. Should the Red Cross be allowed inside the Cage, he added, he would instruct the RAF to stop sending him prisoners suspected of involvement in the Stalag Luft III murders. “The interrogation of these criminals must proceed in Germany under conditions more closely related to police methods than to Geneva convention principles.”
Furthermore, he wrote: “The secret gear which we use to check the reliability of information obtained must be removed from the Cage before permission is given to inspect the building. This work will take a month to complete.” It is unclear what sort of “secret gear” Scotland wanted to conceal from the Red Cross.
It was a further 18 months before the Red Cross could enter the Cage. Its inspector found little evidence of ill-treatment but, as he noted in subsequent reports, 10 prisoners in the worst physical condition appeared to have been moved to other PoW camps the night before his arrival, and there was evidence that any prisoner who lodged a complaint in his presence would suffer reprisals.
Despite the growing number of complaints it was receiving about the London Cage, the International Committee of the Red Cross eventually decided to do nothing “through official channels” as it had been assured that its closure was imminent, and because it feared such action would be against the interests of the men still detained there.
As the work of the Cage was wound down, the interrogation of prisoners was switched to a number of internment camps in Germany. And there is evidence that the treatment meted out in these places was, if anything, far worse. While many of the papers relating to these interrogation centres remain sealed at the Foreign Office, it is clear that one camp in the British zone became particularly notorious. At least two German prisoners starved to death there, according to a court of inquiry, while others were shot for minor offences.
In one complaint lodged at the National Archives, a 27-year-old German journalist being held at this camp said he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. And not once, he said, did they treat him as badly as the British.
The Gaurdian
Bruno
May 10th, 2009
3:17 pm
“I believe that our lawmakers, The United States Congress determines what is legal and what isn’t. It is not some sort of conspiracy where a few corrupt individuals approved this. Nancy Pelosi approved these acts along with dozens of other high ranking United States Officials.”
TOJ–You’re wasting your time if you are expecting any admission by the Libs that the question of whether waterboarding meets the official definition of torture or not is open to interpretation. They won’t be satisfied until they get their proverbial “pound of flesh” from Bush and Cheney, one way or the other.
Personally, I oppose the mistreatment of prisoners and support Obama’s decision to suspend the practice. At the same time, I acknowledge that waterboarding falls somewhat into a grey area in terms of legality, USinUK’s legal “precedents” notwithstanding. Either way, the costs of holding public hearings, both internationally and domestically, will be extremely high, with no possible beneficial outcome. But for some reason, such a risk/benefit argument has fallen on deaf ears with this crowd, in the same way that my exhortations to get into the stock market did. Oh well, at least I tried.
Bruno
May 10th, 2009
3:29 pm
“Most conservatives are conservatives because of their inability to grasp even the most basic of legal concepts. Might makes right for these morons. That’s just not the only law they know, it’s the only law they are capable of comprehending. They’re stupid, disgusting, superstitious, obsequious, chicken-livered fools.”
I’ve gotten quite an education here on W2W the past few weeks. I’ve learned that multiple points of view are no longer possible here in America, that there is only ONE way to view everything: the liberal way. And I’ve learned that if you hold a different opinion, that not only are you wrong, but you are also scum of the Earth for possibly disagreeing.
Pretty ironic that you guys like to crow on about how the “intolerant” right wingers “march in lockstep”……
Bruno
May 10th, 2009
3:46 pm
So now that the economy is improving on it’s own, long before any of the “stimulus spending” kicks in, tell me again how Obama is a genius for saddling our children and grandchildren with all of this massive, unnecessary spending. Paraphrasing USinUK: “We all knew that he was an idiot going into the Presidency, but we hoped that he would at least surround himself with competent people, which he didn’t”. WPE all the way, baby!!!
And a quick stock update for my fan club: I’ve almost reached the 100% return level on my money after making a well-timed purchase of Parker Drilling (PKD). When the price of gas started increasing recently, I figured that their business would pick up again. It’s still a decent buy for any of you stragglers. Side note to Lyrazel: more and more, I’m convinced that Netflix has reached a plateau. Tell your hubby that the Mongrel said to sell it quick and put the money into something that is moving up.
The Other Jack
May 10th, 2009
4:15 pm
bruno
I’m not foolish enough to believe that anyone is going to admit that this administration will ever do anything wrong. A.C.O.R.N. is under investigation is several states for voter fraud, but of course there is no Federal investigation. Our government is looking more and more like the government of a third world banana republic.
Personally, I look forward to the investigation. Nancy Pelosi is already looking like a complete idiot and a compulsive liar (which she is) and she is only one of the many, many democrats that knew and approved that waterboarding was taking place.
If I am right about the sleaziness of the democrats, they will begin to appear to be a benevolent and forgiving administration and drop the idea of an investigation. The reasons for this is twofold. It will not only give their lying and corrupt politicians a way to avoid any criticism of their approval and then lying about waterboarding, but will also play the old Clinton trick of floating a trail balloon about doing something completely outrageous and then backing down, making them appear to be fair and honest.
As far as waterboarding in and of itself, i have no problem with it’s selective use. USinUK has no problem attacking me for using comparisons between the actions of the National Socialists Worker’s Party and the actions of the current democrats because she says that it diminishes the horribleness of the actions of the NAZIs but has no problem calling waterboarding torture, in spite of what our own soldiers have been subjected to.
No Bruno. I don’t expect logic, fairness or rational thinking from most of the Democrats on this blog
Gale
May 11th, 2009
8:23 am
Bruno, you should not assume no one listened to your stock market advice just because there have been no posts to thank you. Keep in mind the many people who read but never post.
I suspect I will not be around a lot this week because it is looking like another mud-slinging session so far.
2D
May 11th, 2009
8:23 am
I haven’t read all of the posts, but from what I can ascertain, most everything revolves around the safety of the drug. While that position can be argued (although not logically by the left given that milder versions of the drug require a prescription), it seems we miss a larger point in the discussion.
If a child is a minor, then the parent is responsible for a child. At least that is what I thought. Why is society creeping toward allowing minor children cut out their parents when it comes to the issue of pregnancy?
Billy
May 11th, 2009
8:24 am
Ah, the ACORN strawman.
ACORN isn’t under federal investigation because ACORN has done nothing wrong and the only ones who seem unable to understand this are right wing blowhards and the sheep that buy everything they tell them. ACORN is about registering voters. It verifies its own forms and, when it finds false ones, takes actions against the staffer responsible for it. The staffer is out of a job and the authorities are notified. The person named on the form never gets on the voter rolls. He sure as hell never gets to actually vote. Hey, geniuses — you can’t have “voter fraud” if no one is placing fraudulent votes.
The only reason the right hates ACORN is that the people they register tend to be urban-dwelling minorities. You know, the kind of people purged by the thousands from Florida’s voter rolls leading up to the 2000 election. Voter fraud is never going to have an impact. At minimum you’re going to have to pass yourself off as someone else and do it at a precinct different than your own. To do it through ACORN, the way the right believes, you’ll not only have to fake your identity at the polls but you’ll also have to get the fake form through screeners at both ACORN and the government. Voter fraud’s inefficient; there’s too much work to change too few votes. The real concern is election fraud. Republicans have already shown us how effective that can be.
Waterboarding –
” Not that they might be used. Not that they will be used, but that they were being used at the time of the briefings.”
Was it classified information at the time? Were the lawmakers told, “OK, we’re waterboarding a few people. This is a state secret, though, and if you tell anyone you could be charged with treason.”? I’m not saying that was the case, but I hardly think everyone in Congress knew and had the ability to do something about it. Those who could have done something, including Pelosi? I absolutely think they should be held responsible. I don’t necessarily want to charge everyone under the sun, but anyone who could have stopped it somehow but didn’t try to should never work in government again.
9/11 has nothing to do with any of this. How is something wrong prior to 9/11 but right afterward? We don’t get to try people for doing something then do that thing ourselves and claim we’re in the right. Your defense of waterboarding is sounding more and more Nixonian — if the President does it then it’s not illegal. Condi basically just said the same thing. Well, I’m not buying. Pelosi can scream something till she passes out, but that doesn’t make it a law. I fully understand that it’s Congress, our lawmakers, who create laws. I’m sure that you are fully aware of the fact that those lawmakers actually have to hold a vote to pass a law. So unless they actually passed a law legalizing torture, waterboarding was and is illegal.
And I don’t give a damn what the British did in WWII. Or Israel over the years. That doesn’t make torture right, either. Why is it that the right thinks it’s OK to look to other nations’ policies when trying to defend the use of torture but not OK when it comes to the decision on whether to execute minors? Forgive us for seeing all this and believing that y’all just seem to want to inflict pain and death whenever your run into someone you don’t like.
Billy
May 11th, 2009
9:17 am
2D, I think people can make perfectly logical arguments that the drug is safe. In fact, unless an impartial study of the drug has refuted the panel’s position, I’d argue that claims Plan B is unsafe are illogical. Sure, your argument (lower dose requires a prescription, therefore higher dose should) seems logical on the surface, but that doesn’t make it correct. Long term exposure to radiation causes cancer but, in certain case, controlled bursts of radiation kills cancer. I’d wager that smoking 25 cigarettes in a day, even if done 3 or 4 times, would cause less overall health problems than smoking one cigarette a day for 25 years. Sure, It’d be a rough couple of days, but I’d bet you’d be less likely to get cancer than with the one-a-day habit.
If we’re going to be honest about the safety issue then the regular pill should be our comparison, anyway. The question is whether taking Plan B is more dangerous than pregnancy. Carrying to term and then delivering is fraught with risk. My wife had to go on bed rest for over two months when pregnant with our first. Over the course of those two months she spent about a week’s worth of nights in the hospital where she could be monitored closely. We went through that because we wanted children, but to force a high school girl to face the possibility of complications like that?
2D, a 17 year-old child’s parents SHOULD be cut out of the issue of pregnancy. That’s up to her alone. You know, if the left used the tactics of the right on this issue, we’d see editorials and ads and email campaigns every waking moment asking, “Why does the right like teenage pregnancy?”
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
9:51 am
Hey The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar I like chicken livers you DUMBASS! oh, please, STFU you sick, deviant liberal POS, IDK, liberalism IS a mental disorder?
just sayin’…
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
9:54 am
Billy, the parents should let thier daughters get into a situation that will get them preggo! Dumbass, just because you parents let you run free since you turned 11 doesn’t mean everyone should. 17 is a CHILD, not an adult, a CHILD! So STFU you DUMBASS! Just sayin’!
Bushlover
May 11th, 2009
10:39 am
I’m back. Why are we STILL talking about torture? The only person concerned with torture is Gandalf, the White (!), because he wants to have his butt ho!e tortured.
Gale
May 11th, 2009
11:18 am
The unfortunate thing about 17 year old girls is that they CAN get pregnant even though society considers them to be minors. In one sense, Gandalf is right. Parents should pay attention and keep them out of situations that lead to pregnancy. Parents should teach personal responsibility and self respect and the many things that will guard them from ever needing Plan B. Two thing. Some parents do not teach these things. Some children do not heed the lessons or forget them in the heat of the moment. I know there may be force and I would hope the girl would seek adult guidence and help in that situation.
Society’s definition of majority is reasonably dependent on idividual legal responsibility. It does not take individual sexual maturity into consideration. It is a fact that minors can and do get pregnant. It is a fact that adolescents, especially late adolescents are trying to be adult in their actions. They will make mistakes. It is part of learning and maturing.
Trent
May 11th, 2009
11:21 am
God money i’ll do anything for you.
God money just tell me what you want me to.
God money nail me up against the wall.
God money don’t want everything he wants it all.
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take that away from me
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take it
no you can’t take that away from me
head like a hole.
black as your soul.
i’d rather die than give you control.
head like a hole.
black as your soul.
i’d rather die than give you control.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
God money’s not looking for the cure.
God money’s not concerned with the sick amongst the pure.
God money let’s go dancing on the backs of the bruised.
God money’s not one to choose
head like a hole.
black as your soul.
i’d rather die than give you control.
head like a hole.
black as your soul.
i’d rather die than give you control.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
bow down before the one you serve.
you’re going to get what you deserve.
you know who you are.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
11:45 am
Torture, is what I dream about doing to you “Bushbeanslover!” Water boarding my ass, I want to induce pain! Just kiddin’, I just want to water board you!
Just sayin’ it 
would be so much fun! 
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
11:46 am
That song sucks!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
11:50 am
Barry SOTD!
My first, my last, my everything.
And the answer to all my dreams.
You’re my sun, my moon, my guiding star.
My kind of wonderful, that’s what you are
I know there’s only, only one like you.
There’s no way, they could have made two
You’re all I’m living for,
Your love I’ll keep for evermore,
You’re the first, you’re the last, my everything.
In you I’ve found so many things
A love so new only you could bring
Can’t you see if you,
You’ll make me feel this way.
You’re like a first morning dew on a brand new day.
I see so many way that I can love you,
Till the day I die.
You’re my reality, yet I’m lost in a dream.
You’re the first, the last, my everything
*** Instrumental ***
I know there’s only, only one like you.
There’s no way they could have made two.
Girl you’re my reality
But I’m lost in a dream
You’re the first, you’re the last, my everything
Billy
May 11th, 2009
11:53 am
Gandalf — For the record, I was less a child at 11 than you apparently are now.
I understand that you may have some sort of good-natured banter with some of the posters on here. I don’t find you the least bit thoughtful or funny, however, and as much as I am at odds with TOJ or Bruno on most issues I’m guessing it’ll be you that finally makes me decide this blog isn’t worth my time. I mean, the rest of us have discussions that admittedly get a little heated sometimes, but you just sit there throwing around insults and whatever the language filters will let through. It’s like going to a PTA meeting on some controversial issue and having some 7th grader yelling inane comments from the back row.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
12:04 pm
Billy! I never sit in the back row!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
12:05 pm
for the Record Billy! I don’t like you!
Just sayin’!
The Other Jack
May 11th, 2009
12:30 pm
trent
Nine inch nails. Of all of the opinions on all the subjects in the world, they are who you quote. LOL!!
Simple music for simple minds.
Scalia
May 11th, 2009
12:43 pm
Parents should be more involved. What happened to the days when boys would go to the girl’s house and they stay there? They get their personal space in the basement, but you know that the parents are upstairs and you better than to try anything.
It seems that getting pregnant is not looked down on.
Billy
May 11th, 2009
12:49 pm
Billy! I never sit in the back row!
I notice you don’t dispute the “yelling inane comments” bit…
I don’t expect you to like me, Gandalf. I’m a fairly civil person. We have nothing in common.
Bushlover
May 11th, 2009
12:53 pm
So you want to torture me? I always knew you were into watersports. And I glad to see that you are aggravating the bloggers with your rude, obnoxious comments.
Billy
May 11th, 2009
1:04 pm
Scalia, I think you’ve got a bunch of parents who are completely absent and another bunch who think,”Not MY child…”
And I feel the need to point out that studies of birth and marriage records from colonial times show that even the Puritans weren’t terribly chaste. Apparently about a third of first-born children were conceived out of wedlock. This isn’t anything terribly new. The difference is that we have the medical knowledge to prevent these pregnancies now.
You know, people who were young adults in the live-it-up 80s are just about the right age to have teens now. I wonder if some of them feel like they can’t really chastise their kids because they did all the same things in their coke-riddled pasts…?
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:14 pm
Billy that’s because they are bad parents. Not because of thier coke riddled past! Everyone in the south drinks Coke you Dumbass!
Just sayin’ 
You are fairly stupid, don’t know about the civil part! 
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:18 pm
Bushbean boy! I would love to get all medieval on you! I would make you confess to all sorts of things!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:19 pm
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:22 pm
Billy! I thought this wasn’t worth your time? Are you a liar? Just sayin’
Billy
May 11th, 2009
1:26 pm
Let’s see…my post from 11:53…
“…I’m guessing it’ll be you that finally makes me decide this blog isn’t worth my time.”
It WILL be you. “Will” meaning “in the future.” So, no, I’m not a liar. You just don’t know what words mean.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:42 pm
So you are a little b1tch that can’t decide?
Just sayin’ 
Make up your feeble mind son! 
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:43 pm
Billy is a good name for a child or a dog
… just sayin’ 
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:45 pm
I didn’t call you a liar, son, I asked if you was one. Learn what words mean billy Boy!
Just sayin! 
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 11th, 2009
1:47 pm
Billy, I always heard, dumb people don’t get funny, …
Just sayin… OBAMA 08! 
Billy
May 11th, 2009
1:51 pm
*sigh*
USinUK, do you actually like this guy?
2D
May 11th, 2009
2:25 pm
Billy…
My argument about the safety of the pill is logical. If a milder version of the drug requires a prescription, then a stronger does should not be allowed to be sold OTC, to ANYONE. If the FDA changes the former statement, then we can discuss the latter statement. Otherwise, the argument about SAFETY should be over. No OTC. Case closed.
BTW… Are you a parent???
As the parent of a daughter, I darn well want to know EVERYTHING that is going on with my minor child. Sure she’s going to make stupid decisions, that’s part of grwoing up. But, we shouldn’t allow her to compound the problem by completely cutting her parents out of the equation. If she takes that drug and something happens, who is responsible??? Her parents. If she doesn’t and has the child who will be responsible??? Her parents. So long that parents are responsible the outcomes, they should be involved with decisions.
We consider people under the age of eighteen children for a reason. We do not give people under the age of eighteen full rights for a reason. We require people under the age of eighteen to receive parental consent for nearly everything for a reason. They aren’t experienced enough to make major life decisions for themselves. Is that so hard to understand?
Gale
May 11th, 2009
2:48 pm
Billy, the problem may be that you expect Gandalf to post in reasoned paragraphs. I find Gandalf’s posts sorta like panning for gold. There is all that silt in the pan, but now and then a glittering nuggat.
Billy
May 11th, 2009
2:54 pm
Yes, 2D, I have two boys (thankfully) who are at least ten years (I hope) from sex becoming an issue for us. And I also want and will want to know everything that is going on in their lives. That said, parent’s aren’t held responsible for all the stupid things their kids do. If a teen is arrested, the parents aren’t charged, as a rule. One could make the argument that if a parent has a good relationship with his/her kid then the kid will keep the parent informed about his/her activities.
And I in no way believe in your absolute statement regarding the medicine behind Plan B. I find it perfectly plausible that a medication could be safe in a large dose if not taken regularly but more risky in small doses taken daily. I find it plausible. When Plan B opponents produce scientific evidence that refutes this, I’ll listen. As yet, though no one has brought such a study to my attention, so I’ll accept the recommendations of the scientists and doctors who suggest its approval.
Also, 18 is just an arbitrary age. We trust kids behind the wheel of a car before then, but we don’t trust them with alcohol for another 3 years. My aunt used to say I was 12 going on 40. I never did anything risky. You could have given me a license at 12 and told me I could drink all I want and I still wouldn’t have lived my life any differently. But the real question is this: If your daughter came to you and told you she had just had sex, would you force her to have the baby? Would you really object to her using Plan B? If a child of 17 is unable to make “major life decisions” for herself, is she able to raise a child? If not, why force her to risk it before she’s even actually pregnant?
Billy
May 11th, 2009
2:56 pm
Gale, if I wanted to pan for gold I’d go to Dahlonega. It’s only a half hour form here.
I’ve yet to see a nugget and I’m not about to start sifting.
Gale
May 11th, 2009
2:59 pm
2D, I have to disagree with part of your comment. If you 17 year old daughter does not take Plan B knowing she is risking pregnancy and does deliver a child, the parents are only resonsible until she is 18. That will likely be a matter of months. For the most part, that 17 year old girl is making the biggest decision of her life. It is a decision that could impact the rest of her life. She is responsible. On one hand, I would like to agree that the parents need to know. But on the other, I think the girl needs to be able to act quickly. Where a girl has the confidence to go to her parents or a responsible adult, all good. In other situations, it may take too long for a girl to muster the courage to talk to an adult. Time is not on her side in this matter.
I am not a parent, but I was a 17 year old girl once. I had a reasonably good relationship with my parents. But I cannot imagine needing to ask my mother or father to buy a Plan B pill for me. Geez. Is it any wonder teen suicides are so high?
Gale
May 11th, 2009
3:03 pm
Billy, maybe those nuggats don’t tend to be visible in your dimension. I confess to sharing a few wave lengths with Gandalf from time to time.
AW
May 11th, 2009
3:16 pm
He drops nuggets all right, but they’re not gold. Just bacteria-filled waste from the irritable bowels of a diseased mind.
Gale
May 11th, 2009
3:27 pm
AW, I will grant there are some of those as well.
However, speaking of dimensions and wave leengths… Did anyone else see the new Star Trek movie this weekend? I was impressed. It was very cool to see Sean of the Dead playing Scotty.