The morning after

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rapunzelthebrave The Great State of, TX
    May 8, 2013 6:10 a.m.

    One in four American women will be the victim of a sex crime during their lives. In Utah, that increases to one in three women being victims during their lives. One out of every three women you know in Utah - young, old, middle-aged, mothers, teens, grandmothers, your child's babysitter will need something like "the morning after pill" in order to prevent a pregnancy after their rape. One in three.

    And, here I am reading squabbling about teens having sex when what this measure actually addresses is the horrible, astronomical number of young and old women (yes, even the 15 year olds) who will be raped in Utah. Perhaps what the Deseret News really needs an Op-Ed about is why tape culture so dominates Utah and American society.

  • David Centerville, UT
    May 4, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    "The Obama administration is correct to appeal this decision as an overreach of Judge Korman's authority. Scientific facts and politics should not be the only factors in deciding such issues."

    More times than not I disagree with the Obama administration. But on this one I agree. The administration is correct to appeal the judge's decision that this pill be available as over-the-counter, and available to any age.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    May 4, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    @Oregon Mom --

    As I and others have already said, Plan B says absolutely nothing about the desirability of having sexually active teens. It simply helps us to deal with the consequences when chastity efforts fail.

    I think we can all agree that we would prefer young teen girls to abstain. I think we can all agree that efforts to steer them away from having sexual relations are good things.

    But that doesn't mean we get to ignore the times when our efforts fail.

    We work to prevent smoking -- but we still give smokers medical treatment when they need it.

    We work to prevent over-eating -- but we still give over-eaters medical treatment when they need it.

    Similarly, it's a good thing to discourage teenage sexual activity. But we shouldn't turn a blind eye when our efforts fail.

    Plan B helps to reduce the need for abortions. It helps to reduce the incidence of teen pregnancies. And those are GOOD things to aim for.

  • Oregon Mom HILLSBORO, OR
    May 4, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    Amazing how many people are simply repeating their opinions rather than responding to the article. I read it twice, and there's no mention of religion anywhere in there. This is about psychology.

    The simple fact is that in the 21st century, a young woman needs at least some post-high school training or education to be successful. We don't live in an agrarian community anymore, in which teens graduated at the end of the 8th grade and went to work on the farm. (Full-time, that is--they'd already been working on the farm part time.) Having a baby at 16, today, is a disaster for a young woman.

    Teens who delay sexual activity are psychologically healthier and on a track to a successful adulthood. This has nothing to do with religious opinion, it's psychology. Young women should spend their teenage years learning and developing talents and becoming the terrific women they were meant to be. Acting as though sexual activity among teens is inevitable is like acting as though binge drinking is normal. It's not good, and we should work to steer youths to a healthier path.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 4, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    25 years after the arrival of AIDS, we should not be having this conversation. In the 1980's everyone was talking about condoms and how teenagers needed to be taught about condoms and movie stars were wearing ribbons about AIDS. Why is anyone still having unprotected sex? Why are talking about a pill to prevent pregnancy? Worry about AIDS and that it can kill you.

    AIDS education is a failure.

    A pharmacist or the FDA should not be making sexual health decisions for anyone's children.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 4, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    Eliot, perhaps you don't realize that there is a difference between recognizing the nature of something and passing judgement on that thing. In other words, knowing a snake when you see it is wise. That doesn't mean you are judging that snake.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 3, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    Many have said it well here but Eric Samuelsen said it most succiently..amen. It's natural, it's programmed, and it's going to happen as it always has. I would choose to have my teenage children and grandchildren abstain until they are emotionaly developed but thank heaven..ironic no, for the plan b pill.

  • UT Brit London, England
    May 3, 2013 2:43 p.m.


    I am sure when teenagers are told its not a good idea to have sex at that age they will stop immediately. Teenagers are rightly characterised for having a strong respect for authority and listening to what their leaders tell them.

    Teens have been having sex for as long as our species has been around. You could try and teach abstinence only education but that has proven to not work (see the teen pregnancy rates in the southern states).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 3, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    "How do you feel about paying for it or forcing other who disagree with it to pay for it through a compulsory tax mechanism?"

    You're actually paying less because contraception is cheaper than the Medicaid payments to cover the pregnancy related health expenses and any welfare/food stamps/assistance needed for the extra children that a lack of contraception would result in.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 3, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    "does not mean its use — and the behaviors that make its use necessary — are healthy for the normal development of a child."

    Sure, but pretending that everyone is going to choose abstinence is to live in a fantasy world.

    "The left-wing apologetics will deny it, but the irrefutable truth is that the action in regard to this pill is just the latest effort on the part of the Obama administration to attack traditional marriage and family."

    Uh... most of the people who would be getting this pill at such a young age would be people who would otherwise be having children out of wedlock if they kept any resulting pregnancy to term. The morning after pill reduces incidents of nontraditional families and birth out of wedlock.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    May 3, 2013 1:33 p.m.


    The trouble with living in a nation as large and diverse as ours is that my taxes are always going to go to something that I don't personally support. That's just life.

    Additionally, studies consistently show that teen out-of-wedlock pregnancies are a leading indicator of poverty, crime, and a slew of other social negatives. I think that subsidizing contraceptives now is far cheaper in comparison to paying for the social costs of unintended teen pregancies down the road. Ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure.


    I think a lot of comments have been clear that kids having sex is not a good thing, but acknowledge that it's going to happen nonetheless. If that's the way they're going to use their moral agency, I'd prefer to mitigate some of the outcomes that impose additional burdens not only on them, but the rest of society. Teens are hardwired to want sex; offering contraceptive options is not going to do anything to increase or encourage that drive.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 3, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    @Eliot – “I suppose there is some irony in posts that plead with the religious right to stop being judgmental while simultaneously passing judgment on the religious right.”

    Hmmm… this objection sounds less like irony (or at least irony we should find troubling) and more like a trick of language. Or as Wittgenstein once said, “the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”

    It’s the same sort of trick that ties liberals in fits regarding the idea of tolerance (i.e., because it sometimes leads them to the absurd conclusion that we should be tolerant of everything, even intolerance).

    Can’t speak for anyone else on this board, but moral relativism ain’t my bag baby…

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 3, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    Two different things: do I think it's good for adolescents to have sex? No, I don't. Do I think me thinking that will have any effect whatsoever on the behavior of kids? No, I don't. So yay for safe effective morning after contraception.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 3, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    I think that most people missed the point of the editorial.

    What people should honestly ask is this, is it healthy for teens to be having sex?

    By healthy I do not mean physically, but mentally. Is your average teenager ready for the emotional repercussions that come with becoming sexually active?

    If it is not a healthy behavior, why encourage it? Would you encourage a teen to smoke?

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    May 3, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    The author is patently wrong suggesting that the morning after pill is not needed if women just practice abstinence before marriage. The primary purpose for the morning after pill is for victims of sexual violence. Curb the violence against women, then the author might be able to make a compelling moral case for his arguments.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    May 3, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    re: Res Novae:

    How do you feel about paying for it or forcing other who disagree with it to pay for it through a compulsory tax mechanism?

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    May 3, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    I suppose there is some irony in posts that plead with the religious right to stop being judgmental while simultaneously passing judgment on the religious right.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 3, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    @The Real Maverick – “It's time for the radical right to turn the other cheek rather than eye for an eye.”

    You said what I wanted to… only better.

    When it comes to the Religious Right in this country I often wonder if the teachings of Jesus are just a smoke screen for what they really want – a Biblical society based on the Law of Moses. But knowing this won’t sell under any humanistic notion of morality (just read Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy to see the Taliban-like society called for by the OT) they have to hide this agenda in the Trojan Horse of Jesus and his teachings on love.

    This might be apparent when you ask people to associate specific words with the Religious Rights… words like:

    Moral Outrage

    Out of all these words, which one is least likely to pop into your mind when you think of the Religious Right… be honest.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    May 3, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    I'm LDS. I believe in abstinence before marriage. I think that rampant teen sexual activity is often destructive, not only individually but also for broader society. I'm disturbed by the recreational approach to sex without consequences that I see among Millenials and today's teens.

    That said, I recognize that my view is increasingly a minority one and that I cannot compel others to hold my values. I also recognize many teenagers who agree with my views still find themselves compromising their values because biology is a powerful urge.

    I'm a realist. I don't like the idea of teenagers using contraceptives, but I understand that many teens will do what they do, and I'd rather they be protected if they do it. It's preferable to compounding the emotional complexities of teen sexuality with the even greater complexities of teen parenthood, or the difficulties of giving a child up for adoption. It's infinitely preferable to an abortion.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 3, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    Those of you who think that the 'chastity' group are somehow trying to control you must have a huge ax to grind. Perhaps its your conscience, I don't know. Although I believe in Chastity, I could care less what moral choices you make,just so long as you don't delegate your desire to have me pay for it to some politician, or perpetuate your 'no consequence' attitude to the next generation of entitled government recipients.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    May 3, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    "many studies that show the harmful affects of adolescent sexual activity. "

    Well duh. I don't think there are many reasonable people out there who would claim that early adolescents SHOULD be having sexual relations.

    But, of course, that's not the point.

    Smoking is a Very Bad Idea -- but we don't deny medical treatment to smokers.

    Over-eating is a Very Bad Idea -- but we don't deny medical treatment to overweight people.

    We *all* want to reduce abortions. Plan B helps to do that. We *all* want to reduce teen pregnancies. Plan B helps to do that as well.

    Plan B says absolutely nothing about the desirability of having sexually active teens. It simply helps us to deal with the consequences when chastity efforts fail.

    And yes, it's important that kids be able to get this without parental permission.

    Many teen girls would **never** tell their parents that they had slept with anyone -- which just means that they would be likely to end up either getting an abortion or becoming yet another teen mother later on. Which one is preferable -- avoiding the pregnancy altogether, or creating the need for an abortion?

    The answer should be obvious.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 3, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    What a strange article! It's almost as if the writer is actually hoping that people who use this are punished by god! Shame on you folks for wishing harm on others. Shame on you!

    It's time for the radical right to turn the other cheek rather than eye for an eye. It's time to stop judging and start serving. It is time to stop yelling and start comforting. It is time to love both friends and enemies. It is time to see others how god sees them, his sons and daughters.

    Ultimately, it is time for Christian conservatives to stand up and actually act like their savior. Stamp out the hatred and vitriol. Stand a bit taller! Lets go repubs! The time is yours!

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 3, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    No one is arguing that engaging in the acts that require emergency contraception is "healthy"

    And this still isn't "without" consequences. If someone is in need of this pill, they likely didnt't use protection.

    I was listening to a radio segment on the radio yesterday, and these pills can range from $50-$100 a pop. Most 15-17 year olds won't have that kind of money to shell out to go "all willey nilley"

    Making it available over the counter almost makes it harder to get. If it isn't a prescription, it likely will not be covered by insurance.

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    May 3, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Trans-fats and soda pop are banned from our schools because we are told that they are unhealthy for kids to consume. They probably are. But it is perfectly fine for our young teenage girls to take heaping doses of hormones to prevent them from getting pregnant because we can't convince them that it is better to wait until they are in a committed relationship before they have sex. To me the issue here is as much about sexual behavior as it is about the long term health of our daughters. When the drug companies tell me not to worry, that all is well and there are no long term side effects, excuse me if I politely clearly me throat and say, "Ahem, hold on just a doggone minute." Whatever happened to the liberal mistrust of big pharmaceuticals?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 3, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    “Frankly, 17 is too young for over-the-counter access to a drug that would give the illusion of sex being free of consequences.”

    And this one sentence captures the entire reality-denying social conservative agenda – it is not about reducing abortions (as this pill surely does) nor is it about promoting individual liberty/agency (a faux concern of the Religious Right dictated solely by their politically expedient marriage with Libertarians).

    It is simply about imposing their moral values on others and making the consequences of not adhering to those values as high as possible. This is readily apparent when you examine their views on everything from economic policy to AIDS research.

    This is fine in and of itself… I just wish they would be honest about it and keep the debate in the domain of moral values (and the basis for those values). But of course doing so would expose the layers of hypocrisy and religious precepts disguised as morality (e.g., sex is “dirty”), so instead we’ll continue to get mostly smoke and mirrors.

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    May 3, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    I agree sex is natural but it doesn't mean we allow our appetites to control us. We should wait for the proper time and the proper place with the right person to engage in it otherwise we will end up with the negative side effects of over indulging such as Venereal diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, emotional trauma and addiction.

    Time to start teaching abstinance again.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 3, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    Sex is natural and enjoyable. It's time to grow up about it, and stop dealing with it only as if it's 'dirty' or as if we're 14 year old boys.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 3, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    One idea trumps them all: Chastity before marriage and fidelity after!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 3, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Studies since 2002 have said that Plan B cannot prevent implantation, and a 2005 memorandum by the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research recognized that the pills main function was to prevent ovulation - but added that it could not exclude the chance that it may stop implantation "in a small percentage of women."

    However, a 2007 study showed that Plan B did not prevent eggs from attaching to cells in the uterus. The eggs were collected from a fertility clinic that would have discarded the specimens otherwise. Other studies in 2007, 2009 and 2010 in Australia and Chile showed that the morning-after pill was only effective in women who had not ovulated. The rate of women of pregnancy for women who had ovulated already and used Plan B was the same rate as people who hadn't used the pill at all.

    Dr. Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who participated in World Health Organization studies leading to FDA approval of the morning-after pill, told the New York Times that the implantation explanation was included in the labels because scientists thought it made the medication seem more effective.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 3, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Re: "There is no evidence to suggest that . . . Plan B One-Step . . . works after an egg is fertilized."


    I guess that's why Plan B One Step's own propaganda, as well as the FDA labeling, acknowledge that Plan B is designed to work in one of three ways, prevention of ovulation, prevention of fertilization, OR prevention of the fertilized ovum from implantation.

    Kinda makes you wonder what hidden agenda one might have, who insists on denying this acknowledged truth, huh?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 3, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    You know DN all your religious sociolgy aside the purpose of sex..the reason it developed, is to procreate. AS such it also developed as pleasant and compelling emotionally to ensure it's success. It's also a fact that humans are sexually mature as early as 12 or 13. Thoughts and urges to be sexually active at 15 are just biology. They are not evil or temptations from the devil. In fact through out most of human history humanity counted on 15 and 17 year olds to procreate the species. So if if you don't want your teenagers to be sexually active fine, but your not just fighting a promiscious society and culture you're fighting human nature and the consequences of a teenager giving in to that nature may be lower grades, or self esteem etc. but it doesn't compare to the consequence of being pregnant. Plan B is a safe and effective way for girls who either don't share your values or who give into nature as they were designed to, not have to be pregnant if they don't want to be.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    May 3, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    There's a difference between actions having negative consequences and wanting actions to have negative consequences so you can feel morally superior. Editorials like these come dangerously close to crossing that line.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 3, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    To oppose effective, safe, and available contraception while at the same time bemoaning unwed mothers is to deny reality and drench yourself in hypocrisy.

    Do you, or do you not, want to decrease abortion rates in this country?

    Make up your mind!

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 3, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    The left-wing apologetics will deny it, but the irrefutable truth is that the action in regard to this pill is just the latest effort on the part of the Obama administration to attack traditional marriage and family. This is undeniable fact.

    The administration wants this pill to be pushed on the public so that the public will believe that it can engage in wanton, uncontrolled sex without any consequences. Indeed, one of the central claims of leftist dogma is that sex is a purely recreational activity that should be engaged in with any person at any time.

    The time has come for the ignorant masses to awaken. The time has come to put an end to government sponsored immorality.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 3, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    Facts frst:

    "Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Next Choice One Dose, Next Choice, and Levonorgestrel Tablets) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized.

    Emergency contraceptive pills will not cause an abortion. EC is not the same as the abortion pill. There is no point in a woman's cycle when the emergency contraceptive pills available in the United States would end a pregnancy once it has started. Hormonal emergency contraceptive pills don’t have any effect if you are already pregnant.


  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 3, 2013 5:00 a.m.

    "Korman has ordered the Obama administration to make so-called morning-after pills......, available over the counter, without a prescription and without any age barriers."

    Please all. Read this sentence before you place blame on Obama. (although, I am confident that it wont stop many)