Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think he is saying he agrees with it in spirit but now how the law is applied.

 

[lpetrich]

In wake of state bans, abortions overall rise, reproductive care falls

To the surprise of absolutely no one familiar with the data on how state bans affect abortion rates, a year-in report released on October 24 by WeCount, part of the Society of Family Planning, confirmed that abortion figures have not declined since the fall of Roe v. Wade in June 2022. They may even have increased, in raw numerical terms, albeit with significant drops in the states where bans were implemented, and attendant spikes in the states adjacent to them, along with virtual patient care. Before the US Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, the average monthly abortion figure was 82,115 cases. A year out, the monthly average noted in this study was 82,298.

This finding is in line with the well-known impact of abortion bans worldwide, and with post-Dobbs research published by the Guttmacher Institute in September. In 2008, the World Health Organization reported that abortion rates were similar, if also more dangerous, in countries with bans compared to those without them (See: infographic below). In 2020, a comprehensive global review in The Lancet further noted that the abortion rate is often higher in countries after implementing abortion bans. This is due to both a higher number of unintended pregnancies, and also a higher proportion of such pregnancies ending in induced abortion.

noting
#WeCount Report
and
Abortions Rose in the U.S. in 2023, Data Shows. See the Changes by State. - The New York Times
and
Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019 - The Lancet Global Health

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right now, polling in Ohio is around same margin as the No on Issue 1 vote was in August. Appears reproductive rights will be a thing in Ohio. Granted, I expect heavy regulation to "protect" women to follow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

Unfortunately the precedent is on their side. A good-hearted but I think bad law that makes it illegal for a US citizen to leave the country for the purpose of having sex with a minor. (I think there are some qualifications on that but I don't recall them at the moment.) It's meant to combat child sex tourism.

You think that it is fine for US citizens to travel to other countries to have sex with children? Am I misunderstanding you?

Note that I said "good hearted"--the purpose is good, it's just the details that bother me.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty--and we are talking about possible future crime with no illegal acts actually committed. I consider it one of the myriad ways that politicians have been coming up with to circumvent the Constitution. Think Minority Report. Sure, the intent is good, but we know what road is paved with good intentions. Just because something is vile doesn't mean that a law designed to combat it is automatically good. There's a good reason conspiracy requires at least one illegal act committed to further the goals of the conspiracy.

And while the purpose is child sex tourism note that it only says "minor". In other words, two 17 year olds who cross a border with the intent of having sex on the other side become criminal under the law. (Not that they're likely to get busted, but they could be.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Idaho's first 'abortion trafficking' arrest

Police used geo-location data to place teen at Oregon clinic

jessica.substack.com

Last week, an Idaho teenager and his mother were arrested for bringing the teen’s girlfriend out-of-state for an abortion. The pair were charged with multiple felonies, including second degree kidnapping, for taking a minor under 16 years-old “with the intent to keep or conceal [her] from her custodial parent...by transporting the child out of the state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.”

The 15 year-old, identified in court records as K.B., was living in Pocatello with her 18 year-old boyfriend Kaydn* and his mother, Rachael, when she became pregnant. In May, they brought her to Oregon, where K.B. received abortion medication. Idaho’s ‘abortion trafficking’ law went into effect that same month.

The investigation into the mother and son began shortly after K.B.’s mother reported to police that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. Though K.B. became sexually active when Kaydn was 17 years-old, he turned 18 during the course of their relationship; so in addition to the kidnapping charge, court documents show that he’s also been charged with rape and sexual exploitation of a child.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The alt-right are despicable I guess this will go to SCOTUS, as a civil rights case. They are residents of Idaho, but citizens of the United States. It is reprehensible they investigated the mother for a sexual assault.

Been seeing some ugly ads against the abortion vote in Ohio, on Sling while watching ODI World Cup cricket. Pretty much the hyperbole we've come to expect from these animals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Idaho's first 'abortion trafficking' arrest

Police used geo-location data to place teen at Oregon clinic

jessica.substack.com

Last week, an Idaho teenager and his mother were arrested for bringing the teen’s girlfriend out-of-state for an abortion. The pair were charged with multiple felonies, including second degree kidnapping, for taking a minor under 16 years-old “with the intent to keep or conceal [her] from her custodial parent...by transporting the child out of the state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.”

The 15 year-old, identified in court records as K.B., was living in Pocatello with her 18 year-old boyfriend Kaydn* and his mother, Rachael, when she became pregnant. In May, they brought her to Oregon, where K.B. received abortion medication. Idaho’s ‘abortion trafficking’ law went into effect that same month.

The investigation into the mother and son began shortly after K.B.’s mother reported to police that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. Though K.B. became sexually active when Kaydn was 17 years-old, he turned 18 during the course of their relationship; so in addition to the kidnapping charge, court documents show that he’s also been charged with rape and sexual exploitation of a child.

How do they get kidnapping charges out of this?

Besides, said teen was living with the people who brought her to Oregon. "Custodial parent" isn't doing their job.

(And this looks like one of the flaws with Romeo and Juliet laws. The relationship was legal when he was 17, I do not believe a pairing that was legal should become illegal at some threshold.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

 

[Toni]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

Of course this is despicable but it does highlight my concern with OTC birth control pills and OTC morning after pill: in addition to making much needed birth control easily available to those seeking to prevent their own pregnancy, it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor.

I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately.

The other, much more minor concern I have is that annual exams for renewal of birth control are often the only well check up young women get. There they are screened for STIs, a breast exam is conducted, Pap smear taken and there is also screening for possible domestic abuse. As a younger woman, this WAS my annual check up.

There are obvious work around for this but I can tell you that most young adults do not go in for annual check ups without some underlying reason. Even with good healthcare.

 

[bilby]

Given that pregnancy is one of the least plausible ways in which someone's abuse of a minor might come to light, this seems like an entirely reverse engineered "concern" whose sole reason for existence is to undermine attempts to improve society by allowing women to access birth control.

Many minor victims of abuse are physiologically incapable of becoming pregnant. Those who are not can be abused in numerous ways with a very low risk of pregnancy. And abusers are (by definition) adept at avoiding detection - if a teenage girl is pregnant by her abusive father or uncle or priest or whoever, that abuser will likely ensure that the blame falls on some other child.

None of this can be prevented, mitigated, or even made particularly difficult for the abuser by the trivial question of whether or not oral contraception is available over the counter.

And there appears to be zero evidence of any actual cases in which such OTC medication was abused in that fashion. But even if such a case were to exist, the prevention of pregnancy in his victim would form a minuscule fraction of the total deception needed to obscure the abuser's crimes. Literally nobody in the history of sexual abuse has said to themselves "I was going to attack that child sexually, but then I realised that I couldn't easily acquire oral contraceptive tablets, so I decided I had better not after all".

The degree to which banning OTC contraceptive sales protects against such abuse is, to within any reasonable margin of error, zero. It therefore makes zero sense to prohibit such sales due to vague "concerns", which inevitably originate from disingenuous people who have other (ie religious) reasons for their objections, but who are desperately scrabbling to find a rationalisation that will not be rejected by people who don't share their faith.

Lots of people have no objection to providing easy access to contraception for adult women who want access to it. But almost everyone has strong objections to the sexual abuse of minors.

So promoting vague "concerns" that there could, possibly (albeit utterly implausibly) be a link between contraceptive availability and the ease with which children are sexually abused, is excellent propaganda.

It's not a real concern though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't believe Toni is arguing against access, just seeing minority cases where abusers will likely be able to game the system. Just because something exists (and should exist) and only a small portion of the system is abused, doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the problem and try to address it without violating the rights of people rightfully benefitting from the system.

 

[Toni]

Given that pregnancy is one of the least plausible ways in which someone's abuse of a minor might come to light, this seems like an entirely reverse engineered "concern" whose sole reason for existence is to undermine attempts to improve society by allowing women to access birth control.

Many minor victims of abuse are physiologically incapable of becoming pregnant. Those who are not can be abused in numerous ways with a very low risk of pregnancy. And abusers are (by definition) adept at avoiding detection - if a teenage girl is pregnant by her abusive father or uncle or priest or whoever, that abuser will likely ensure that the blame falls on some other child.

None of this can be prevented, mitigated, or even made particularly difficult for the abuser by the trivial question of whether or not oral contraception is available over the counter.

And there appears to be zero evidence of any actual cases in which such OTC medication was abused in that fashion. But even if such a case were to exist, the prevention of pregnancy in his victim would form a minuscule fraction of the total deception needed to obscure the abuser's crimes. Literally nobody in the history of sexual abuse has said to themselves "I was going to attack that child sexually, but then I realised that I couldn't easily acquire oral contraceptive tablets, so I decided I had better not after all".

The degree to which banning OTC contraceptive sales protects against such abuse is, to within any reasonable margin of error, zero. It therefore makes zero sense to prohibit such sales due to vague "concerns", which inevitably originate from disingenuous people who have other (ie religious) reasons for their objections, but who are desperately scrabbling to find a rationalisation that will not be rejected by people who don't share their faith.

Lots of people have no objection to providing easy access to contraception for adult women who want access to it. But almost everyone has strong objections to the sexual abuse of minors.

So promoting vague "concerns" that there could, possibly (albeit utterly implausibly) be a link between contraceptive availability and the ease with which children are sexually abused, is excellent propaganda.

It's not a real concern though.

Least plausible? Unfortunately, it isn’t. Most infamous recent case was a 9 year old girl whose case received a great deal of publicity when she had to travel to another state to obtain an abortion, despite the pregnancy being dangerous to her own health and the result of rape by an adult man. Unfortunately, this is not nearly so rare as we would all like to believe, although very few 9 year olds are capable of becoming pregnant. Most states in the US allow minors to marry, usually but not always with parental consent being necessary. Child marriages happen, specifically to cover up an out of wedlock pregnancy in a very young teen—with the father being legally an adult and often, middle aged.

My concerns are hardly vague. I remember more than one 13-14 year old girl I went to school with who married a man more than twice her age and had a baby 6 months later. Thus ended their formal education.

Back in the dark ages, during one of our prenatal classes, the nurse very frankly told us that girls who gave birth under age 14 usually had much better health outcomes compared with the girls who were 14-15, because the older girls were more easily able to run away from home and find means of supporting themselves, which was very dangerous and did not include health care, prenatal care or a decent diet. The younger girls’ were more likely to remain under parental care and got a better diet and access to health care the older girls did not, mitigating somewhat the dangers of pregnancy for such a young girl.

Of course, children who are being sexually abused by adults are better off if they do not become pregnant.

I wish I believed that this was a uniquely American problem, but in fact, childhood pregnancies happen all over the world.

 

[bilby]

My concerns are hardly vague. I remember more than one 13-14 year old girl I went to school with who married a man more than twice her age and had a baby 6 months later. Thus ended their formal education.

Sure. That's something that happens with alarming frequency.

I wouldn't expect it to be less frequent if OTC contraceptives were available in pharmacies though.

If you want it less frequent, prohibiting people from marrying children might help. But prohibiting OTC contraceptive sales almost certainly wouldn't.

 

[Toni]

My concerns are hardly vague. I remember more than one 13-14 year old girl I went to school with who married a man more than twice her age and had a baby 6 months later. Thus ended their formal education.

Sure. That's something that happens with alarming frequency.

I wouldn't expect it to be less frequent if OTC contraceptives were available in pharmacies though.

If you want it less frequent, prohibiting people from marrying children might help. But prohibiting OTC contraceptive sales almost certainly wouldn't.

No: What does concern me is that it will make it easier for those who sexually abuse children to avoid detection by avoiding the pregnancy that can result.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

Of course this is despicable but it does highlight my concern with OTC birth control pills and OTC morning after pill: in addition to making much needed birth control easily available to those seeking to prevent their own pregnancy, it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor.

I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately.

The other, much more minor concern I have is that annual exams for renewal of birth control are often the only well check up young women get. There they are screened for STIs, a breast exam is conducted, Pap smear taken and there is also screening for possible domestic abuse. As a younger woman, this WAS my annual check up.

There are obvious work around for this but I can tell you that most young adults do not go in for annual check ups without some underlying reason. Even with good healthcare.

Yeah, that's the standard argument but is it a net benefit to women?

 

[Toni]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

Of course this is despicable but it does highlight my concern with OTC birth control pills and OTC morning after pill: in addition to making much needed birth control easily available to those seeking to prevent their own pregnancy, it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor.

I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately.

The other, much more minor concern I have is that annual exams for renewal of birth control are often the only well check up young women get. There they are screened for STIs, a breast exam is conducted, Pap smear taken and there is also screening for possible domestic abuse. As a younger woman, this WAS my annual check up.

There are obvious work around for this but I can tell you that most young adults do not go in for annual check ups without some underlying reason. Even with good healthcare.

Yeah, that's the standard argument but is it a net benefit to women?

I think it IS a net benefit to girls and women, with some glaring safety issues. It is NOT my favorite method of dispensing birth control. OTC means no screening for STIs, no screening for health conditions that would make a different method of birth control a better choice, including ability to maintain a daily schedule of taking pills reliably, no screening for coercion or counseling for disease prevention. And no screening for an existing pregnancy.

My first visit for birth control included all of that. And a couple of comments to assure that I realized that sex was supposed to be pleasurable for women, not just for men. This is not universal knowledge, btw. It should be. I don’t think that men realize just how vulnerable young girls and women can be to all sorts of exploitation—intentional and inadvertent. Unfortunately a lot of boys get their inspiration for sex from porn and do not expect the girl to enjoy it—and a lot don’t care, being too caught up in their own needs to consider anyone else. This is deplorable and sets up very unhealthy dynamics.

I think that all of that is important, especially for teenagers.

Obviously we need to do a much better job with sex education.

 

[bilby]

My concerns are hardly vague. I remember more than one 13-14 year old girl I went to school with who married a man more than twice her age and had a baby 6 months later. Thus ended their formal education.

Sure. That's something that happens with alarming frequency.

I wouldn't expect it to be less frequent if OTC contraceptives were available in pharmacies though.

If you want it less frequent, prohibiting people from marrying children might help. But prohibiting OTC contraceptive sales almost certainly wouldn't.

No: What does concern me is that it will make it easier for those who sexually abuse children to avoid detection by avoiding the pregnancy that can result.

Yes, I understand that that's your concern, and I find it ludicrous.

People who abuse girls don't expect to be caught, and they won't be any more (or less) likely to commit their crimes if they have ready access to contraceptive pills.

I would hazard a guess that the number of abusers who have successfully avoided detection by using contraceptive pills in this way is zero.

How's it even meant to work? How does an abuser even manage to ensure that his victim takes a pill each day, even assuming that he has the foresight to see that a pregnancy could lead to his discovery?

Abusers expect to get away with their crimes. They don't plan complex strategies to avoid detection, and if they did, the strategy of making sure she took a contraceptive pill every single day would likely be a bigger risk to his criminal activity becoming uncovered than her becoming pregnant (which an adult abuser would inevitably blame on some similar aged boy).

The entire scenario is absurd, and exists only as a story told by opponents of the ready availability of contraception, to persuade people like you that their position isn't completely groundless. But it is. Oral contraception should be available over the counter. No child will be abused as a result; But significant numbers of adult women would benefit considerably.

 

[Toni]

My concerns are hardly vague. I remember more than one 13-14 year old girl I went to school with who married a man more than twice her age and had a baby 6 months later. Thus ended their formal education.

Sure. That's something that happens with alarming frequency.

I wouldn't expect it to be less frequent if OTC contraceptives were available in pharmacies though.

If you want it less frequent, prohibiting people from marrying children might help. But prohibiting OTC contraceptive sales almost certainly wouldn't.

No: What does concern me is that it will make it easier for those who sexually abuse children to avoid detection by avoiding the pregnancy that can result.

Yes, I understand that that's your concern, and I find it ludicrous.

People who abuse girls don't expect to be caught, and they won't be any more (or less) likely to commit their crimes if they have ready access to contraceptive pills.

I would hazard a guess that the number of abusers who have successfully avoided detection by using contraceptive pills in this way is zero.

How's it even meant to work? How does an abuser even manage to ensure that his victim takes a pill each day, even assuming that he has the foresight to see that a pregnancy could lead to his discovery?

Abusers expect to get away with their crimes. They don't plan complex strategies to avoid detection, and if they did, the strategy of making sure she took a contraceptive pill every single day would likely be a bigger risk to his criminal activity becoming uncovered than her becoming pregnant (which an adult abuser would inevitably blame on some similar aged boy).

The entire scenario is absurd, and exists only as a story told by opponents of the ready availability of contraception, to persuade people like you that their position isn't completely groundless. But it is. Oral contraception should be available over the counter. No child will be abused as a result; But significant numbers of adult women would benefit considerably.

No, of course they don't expect to be caught. But if there is a pregnancy, it is much more likely they will be caught. Please note: I am NOT advocating for anyone who abuses children to avoid detection. But which do you suppose is more traumatic: To be sexually abused? Or to be sexually abused and to get pregnant? Depending on the age of the child, it is not unlikely that any such pregnancy would be undetected until late into the pregnancy. Even if it were discovered immediately, a pregnancy, even one that is terminated very early, in the safest possible environment, is more traumatic than no pregnancy.

When I was a young woman, I would have been THRILLED to be able to walk into a drugstore and pick up a pack of birth control pills. That would have been much more simple. Having lived some years and gained some experience in life and with ob-gyns and gyns and general practitioners, I can tell you that I am GRATEFUL for my appointment at the student medical center where I was given a good exam, spoken to like an adult, and my wellbeing was inquired after and ensured.

Do you know why birth control pills fail most often? Because they are not taken correctly. Do you know how many people do not take OTC medications properly? Me, either, but it's a lot.

Just because someone has concerns that YOU, a MAN, do not have, does not mean that they do not want everyone who wants and/or needs birth control to have easy access to the best method for them . I AM the sort of person who does look at worst case scenarios. Unlike you, I have some personal experience in this area. I am aware that for some girls and women, birth control pills are potentially dangerous. For others, they are less likely to be effective because the girl/woman isn't prepared or able to take pills on a reliable, regular daily basis. For those individuals, a different, more long lasting form of birth control THAT CANNOT BE PURCHASED AT A DRUG STORE is much more appropriate. I also am aware that some girls and women who are seeking the pill will already be pregnant and/or may have an STI. Birth control pills can mask symptoms of a pregnancy. Without an exam, an STI can go undetected until it causes serious complications for the woman and/or if she is pregnant, the fetus.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Flaw? This was the design!

Meanwhile, in Ohio, saw an ad where they actually use the rape of the ten year old girl in Ohio as a ploy to support the abortion ban, because if abortion was legal in Ohio, then the rapist could have just driven her to get an abortion because of a lack of parental consent rules. OMFG! I mean, we are talking massive logic errors here. The current law (on hold) is not to allow any abortions... so that girl wouldn't be driven to get one by her rapist. The alt-right is effectively making the O in GOP mean "Orwellian".

Of course this is despicable but it does highlight my concern with OTC birth control pills and OTC morning after pill: in addition to making much needed birth control easily available to those seeking to prevent their own pregnancy, it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor.

I don’t know a good way around this, unfortunately.

The other, much more minor concern I have is that annual exams for renewal of birth control are often the only well check up young women get. There they are screened for STIs, a breast exam is conducted, Pap smear taken and there is also screening for possible domestic abuse. As a younger woman, this WAS my annual check up.

There are obvious work around for this but I can tell you that most young adults do not go in for annual check ups without some underlying reason. Even with good healthcare.

Yeah, that's the standard argument but is it a net benefit to women?

I think it IS a net benefit to girls and women, with some glaring safety issues. It is NOT my favorite method of dispensing birth control. OTC means no screening for STIs, no screening for health conditions that would make a different method of birth control a better choice, including ability to maintain a daily schedule of taking pills reliably, no screening for coercion or counseling for disease prevention. And no screening for an existing pregnancy.

My first visit for birth control included all of that. And a couple of comments to assure that I realized that sex was supposed to be pleasurable for women, not just for men. This is not universal knowledge, btw. It should be. I don’t think that men realize just how vulnerable young girls and women can be to all sorts of exploitation—intentional and inadvertent. Unfortunately a lot of boys get their inspiration for sex from porn and do not expect the girl to enjoy it—and a lot don’t care, being too caught up in their own needs to consider anyone else. This is deplorable and sets up very unhealthy dynamics.

I think that all of that is important, especially for teenagers.

Obviously we need to do a much better job with sex education.

You're only listing the upsides, not the downsides of how many teens get pregnant because they couldn't get birth control pills. We need to evaluate both sides to arrive at the right answer.

 

[bilby]

My concerns are hardly vague. I remember more than one 13-14 year old girl I went to school with who married a man more than twice her age and had a baby 6 months later. Thus ended their formal education.

Sure. That's something that happens with alarming frequency.

I wouldn't expect it to be less frequent if OTC contraceptives were available in pharmacies though.

If you want it less frequent, prohibiting people from marrying children might help. But prohibiting OTC contraceptive sales almost certainly wouldn't.

No: What does concern me is that it will make it easier for those who sexually abuse children to avoid detection by avoiding the pregnancy that can result.

Yes, I understand that that's your concern, and I find it ludicrous.

People who abuse girls don't expect to be caught, and they won't be any more (or less) likely to commit their crimes if they have ready access to contraceptive pills.

I would hazard a guess that the number of abusers who have successfully avoided detection by using contraceptive pills in this way is zero.

How's it even meant to work? How does an abuser even manage to ensure that his victim takes a pill each day, even assuming that he has the foresight to see that a pregnancy could lead to his discovery?

Abusers expect to get away with their crimes. They don't plan complex strategies to avoid detection, and if they did, the strategy of making sure she took a contraceptive pill every single day would likely be a bigger risk to his criminal activity becoming uncovered than her becoming pregnant (which an adult abuser would inevitably blame on some similar aged boy).

The entire scenario is absurd, and exists only as a story told by opponents of the ready availability of contraception, to persuade people like you that their position isn't completely groundless. But it is. Oral contraception should be available over the counter. No child will be abused as a result; But significant numbers of adult women would benefit considerably.

No, of course they don't expect to be caught. But if there is a pregnancy, it is much more likely they will be caught. Please note: I am NOT advocating for anyone who abuses children to avoid detection. But which do you suppose is more traumatic: To be sexually abused? Or to be sexually abused and to get pregnant? Depending on the age of the child, it is not unlikely that any such pregnancy would be undetected until late into the pregnancy. Even if it were discovered immediately, a pregnancy, even one that is terminated very early, in the safest possible environment, is more traumatic than no pregnancy.

When I was a young woman, I would have been THRILLED to be able to walk into a drugstore and pick up a pack of birth control pills. That would have been much more simple. Having lived some years and gained some experience in life and with ob-gyns and gyns and general practitioners, I can tell you that I am GRATEFUL for my appointment at the student medical center where I was given a good exam, spoken to like an adult, and my wellbeing was inquired after and ensured.

Do you know why birth control pills fail most often? Because they are not taken correctly. Do you know how many people do not take OTC medications properly? Me, either, but it's a lot.

Just because someone has concerns that YOU, a MAN, do not have, does not mean that they do not want everyone who wants and/or needs birth control to have easy access to the best method for them . I AM the sort of person who does look at worst case scenarios. Unlike you, I have some personal experience in this area. I am aware that for some girls and women, birth control pills are potentially dangerous. For others, they are less likely to be effective because the girl/woman isn't prepared or able to take pills on a reliable, regular daily basis. For those individuals, a different, more long lasting form of birth control THAT CANNOT BE PURCHASED AT A DRUG STORE is much more appropriate. I also am aware that some girls and women who are seeking the pill will already be pregnant and/or may have an STI. Birth control pills can mask symptoms of a pregnancy. Without an exam, an STI can go undetected until it causes serious complications for the woman and/or if she is pregnant, the fetus.

I don't disagree with any of this.

None is relevant to the (IMO specious) idea that OTC availability of oral contraception could lead to more child abuse. This is a made up fear, without basis in reality, that is being used to manipulate people into opposing something that they otherwise would (or might) support.

There's an important discussion to be had; And you raise a number of points that must be a part of that discussion.

But "it does make it much easier for someone who is abusing a minor to prevent discovery by preventing pregnancy in the minor" is, I suspect, not one of those points, because it's an entirely fictional scenario. It feels like it might be something that has happened; But there's zero evidence that it actually has.

Literally nobody has ever attempted to use this method to prevent discovery, in a way that would have been easier for them if the pill were available OTC.

Until and unless at least one case of this happening in reality (and not just in the imagination of propagandists) is presented, it shouldn't form any part of the discussion. As you correctly point out, there are many important and real issues that need consideration; Adding red herrings isn't helpful.