“A federal court ruling this week spared no criticism of the FDA, saying that the agency’s reason for limiting behind-the-counter sales of the pill to women 18 or older and to minors with a prescription “lacks all credibility” and was politically motivated. Perhaps most scathing was the court’s order to the FDA: Go back and reexamine the issue solely on its scientific merits. Within 30 days, the FDA also must make the pill available to 17-year-olds without a prescription.”
I’m not sure what the objection was. When someone takes the pill there is no proof of any life being terminated. If it’s the fact that 17 year-year-olds can get it without a prescription I guess there are some parents that would rather have pregnant 17 year old children.
If it’s the fact that 17 year-year-olds can get it without a prescription I guess there are some parents that would rather have pregnant 17 year old children.
Or that parents would rather know that their minor child is pregnant and that they are taking a drug that could/is inducing an abortion that may be dangerous and or cause complications…they are MINOR children after all and if anything goes wrong the parents are on the hook for the damages.
great… lets hand those baby killing meds out like candy. Why stop at 17 year olds? Perhaps we can put them in vending machines in junior high schools and sell them alongside the cokes and twinkies.
well, it’s a bit of assumption that a pregnancy has occurred. morning-after pills are designed to prevent pregnancy; i understand that there is also the possibility of it acting on a fertilized egg (that has been there at most for what…72 hours?), but it’s not an ‘abortion’ pill per se.
Has a comparison of RU486 vs. morning-after pills (i.e., Plan B).
(Edit: It has always been my understanding that the morning-after pill cannot terminate a pregnancy. That said, it’s also my understanding that it could impact a very-recently fertilized egg, but also that not a lot is known about that. I could be wrong though. Anyways, just to point out that the morning-after pill isn’t the abortion pill; one stops pregnancy, the other terminates it)
My concern has nothing to do with the actual pregnancy as much as the rights of the parents. If it’s a minor child then no matter the complications the parent is responsible.
And again I speak more in “Global” terms here as well. That same 17 year old would need a note from her parents to bring an asprin or midol to school, but we will give her a morning after pill at 17 or an abortion at 12 with no notification to the parents.
It’s progesterone, i.e. 1/2 of whats in the birth control pill… you could do the same thing with a super dose of the pill, but you would get more estrogen than is healthy. AFAIK, the parents DO NOT need to be notified for the pill, why would this be any different.
Their child IS NOT PREGNANT. And it is not inducing an abortion. It is **preventing **a pregnancy. No matter how loud one side shouts it is CONTRACEPTION.
It’s progesterone, i.e. 1/2 of whats in the birth control pill… you could do the same thing with a super dose of the pill, but you would get more estrogen than is healthy. AFAIK, the parents DO NOT need to be notified for the pill, why would this be any different.
therein lies the problem… We let children hop on the pill without parent notification. that is freaking nuts!! If a little 14 year old wants to be a tramp and sleep around while barely out of junior high, we should not be closing out the parents from the process. Don’t we have laws against kids being sexually active at too young an age?
AFAIK, the parents DO NOT need to be notified for the pill, why would this be any different.
I think the only way you can get the pill is thru a prescription. I’m not sure a minor can just go to the doctor and get prescription for the pill without parental consent, but I’m far from sure about that. I would think someplace like “Planned parent hood” would likely do the exam but I’m not sure if they do that or just write the prescription for the pills and you have to get the exam elsewhere.
Point is that for the most part parents get hung out to dry on this issue. If indeed there are any complications, whether that is with the pill or abortion the parents are responsible for that. However they have no input on the decision in the first place.
Don’t we have laws against kids being sexually active at too young an age?
No, not with their peers. We only have laws about sexual activity based on age. If an 8 year wants to mess around with a 10 year that is entirely legal.
no one is being killed. From the article Teags provided on the morning after pill:
Emergency Contraception Plan B contains the same hormones as in regular birth control pills; Plan B prevents pregnancyafter sex when taken within days after unprotected intercourse. Emergency Contraception will not harm an existing pregnancy.
I think its kinda disturbing that my minor daughter can get an abortion on demand with out my consent, but, she needs my consent to get a tattoo, use a tanning bed, or get a body piercing, take a field trip to the zoo with the school…etc…
This is not the 1400s anymore, babys are not a valuable commodity anymore! Especially ones mothers don’t want.
great… lets hand those baby killing meds out like candy. Why stop at 17 year olds? Perhaps we can put them in vending machines in junior high schools and sell them alongside the cokes and twinkies.
The without parental conset thing allows victims of incest to get rid of their brother/son without being murdered by their rapist dad.
Some think this is too rare an occurrence to be worth the downside of parental rights being violated.
Me, personally I think if you can get a dick in you, you can decide what risks you want to take.
My concern has nothing to do with the actual pregnancy as much as the rights of the parents. If it’s a minor child then no matter the complications the parent is responsible.
And again I speak more in “Global” terms here as well. That same 17 year old would need a note from her parents to bring an asprin or midol to school, but we will give her a morning after pill at 17 or an abortion at 12 with no notification to the parents.
The without parental conset thing allows victims of incest to get rid of their brother/son without being murdered by their rapist dad.
Some think this is too rare an occurrence to be worth the downside of parental rights being violated.
Me, personally I think if you can get a dick in you, you can decide what risks you want to take.
You can take this either way and I’m not even really discussing that, but at present they are trying to have it both ways. You can’t say “Parents you are responsible for your kids health and welfare” and then say “Kids you can do these certain things and your parents will never know”. It would be the same thing as me saying you were responsible for any car accidents I got into with your car, but then have the state tell me I could take your car whenever I wanted without your consent.
This is not really discussion of the “Morals” of the situation or even the danger of the procedures as much as the burden of responsibility without involvement.
If the state feels that it is ok for a minor child to do these things without parental consent, fine, but then the state should be responsible for any and all conditions or complications that may occur, not the parent.
At the same time if a minor child is given birth control without the consent of the parent and that birth control fails and a child is born, shouldn’t the state take responsibility for that as well? We are talking about the state taking the position of the parent and making decisions for the parent, thus they must take the responsibilities of the parent surrounding those decisions.