Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Gives 17-Year-Old Girls Unrestricted Access to Morning-After Pill
CNS News ^ | Tuesday, March 24, 2009 | By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

Posted on 03/24/2009 7:02:16 AM PDT by meandog

(CNSNews.com) – A federal court in New York on Monday expanded teenagers’ access to Plan B – also known as the morning-after pill or emergency contraception.

The court gave the Food and Drug Administration 30 days to make Plan B available over the counter to 17 year olds. Right now, the pill is available over the county only to those 18 years and up.

Pro-life groups are dismayed that 17-year-old girls will now have unrestricted access to a drug that can produce abortion by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. But abortion rights groups celebrated the ruling, saying it takes politics out of science.

"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for all Americans who expect the government to safeguard public health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the lawsuit against the FDA.

"The message is clear -- the FDA should put medical science first and leave politics at the lab door. We are encouraged that the agency, now under new leadership, will take that message to heart."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: education; family; fda; judge; judicialtyranny; morningafterpill; parenting; pill; ruling; sexpositiveagenda; statutoryrape; teens; teensex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Believe it or not, the judge is a Reagan appointee.
1 posted on 03/24/2009 7:02:16 AM PDT by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: meandog

so is Anthony Kennedy....it can be a crap shoot.


2 posted on 03/24/2009 7:05:31 AM PDT by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

just so she doesnt want to join the military or some other major life decison that requires parental consent

s-a-r-c

how is some pharmacy supposed to know if a fat teenager is not 6 months preggers and this drug could kill her AND the baby


3 posted on 03/24/2009 7:17:53 AM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Can I ask, in all seriousness, does anybody know how this got to be the subject of a court case? I know that the subject of morning after pills is troubling. But, with an age limit at 18, it was available to those who are legally adults. Why was there a court case to force it to be available to an underage teenage girl? What is the legal reasoning and the legal justification for something available to a legal adult, to be available to one who is legally a minor?

And why is the age limit of 17 now? Unfortunately too many teens younger than that may need such a pill if you know what I mean. Now that there’s no concept here of who is legally an adult, where will any lines be drawn?

And what about parental consent for your minor daughters and any medical treatment? Is that legal concept gone too?


4 posted on 03/24/2009 7:22:37 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero; narses; MHGinTN

But a school official (or a druggist!) can’t give an underage kid even an aspirin without written permission.


5 posted on 03/24/2009 7:23:50 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

oh my goodness, no

Ask any teacher or youth group leader if they can legally give an aspirin or a cough drop to a kid under 18 without parental permission or a dr prescription


6 posted on 03/24/2009 7:25:43 AM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Do I hear 16, how about 15...........


7 posted on 03/24/2009 7:28:32 AM PDT by headstamp 2 ("Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ping!


8 posted on 03/24/2009 7:28:52 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Teach your children right from wrong, and be protective of your daughters because, you can probably guess this for yourself, the state isn’t going to help you. The state needs your daughter to be a dependent minded little ward.


9 posted on 03/24/2009 7:52:00 AM PDT by Professor_Leonide (I said to the young man who showed me a photo, "Who can ever be sure what is behind a mask?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

The morning after pill will not end an established pregnancy. It is a moderate dose synthetic progesterone and progesterone supports the uterine lining.

Whether it will prevent implantation after fertilization is not clear to me from looking at the studies.

Studies HAVE shown that making the morning-after pill readily available does not reduce pregnancy rates as a whole though obviously it is effective in preventing an individual pregnancy.

What is ridiculous is the moral posturing over not letting politics interfere with science and medicine when the judges’ policy decision leads to a one year age difference than the Bush administration’s policy decision.


10 posted on 03/24/2009 7:54:14 AM PDT by heartwood (Tarheel in exile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: meandog

“The message is clear — the FDA should put medical science first and leave politics at the lab door.”

Their statement is a lie.

It is not a matter of “leaving politics” at the door. They are really asking that science should trump ethics and morals.


11 posted on 03/24/2009 8:08:51 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Notice to all young, not-yet-fully-mature females - go ahead and take a massive dose of hormones every time you have unprotected sex, and do it while not under the care of a physician. In about 15 years, you can be the new bearded woman at the circus!


12 posted on 03/24/2009 8:11:14 AM PDT by ponygirl ("Do not let anything into your body or into your heart that will damage your faith.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood
http://www.cpcanchorage.com/morning_after_pill.html

this is not some harmless drug

Bush policy set the age at 18- which is age of legal responsibility for one’s own actions.

Not age 17.

If a 17 yr old makes a dumb, misinformed or otherwise bad decision, who is responsible under the law? Right now it is THE PARENT or guardian.

So Mr Judge, if a 17 yr old juvenile with diabetes or PID or who is PREGNANT or who otherwise ignores manufacture warning and uses this drug and suffers reaction, WHO IS LEGALLY responsible for the outcome?

Then there is the slippery slope- if a juvenile at 17 is OK, why not age 16? Then if age 16 OK, why not age 15? After all, depending state, girls at age 13 can get a full abortion- why can't any juvenile get a pill?

It is not “moral posturing” to criticize the government for stepping between a juvenile and her parent or guardian and for putting some juveniles at risk!

13 posted on 03/24/2009 8:13:09 AM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; All

“And why is the age limit of 17 now? Unfortunately too many teens younger than that may need such a pill if you know what I mean.”

Yes, we know what you mean.

Having told them that it’s O.K. to be promiscuous, provided they use a condom, we are now to tell them they don’t even need to worry about that lack of a condom.

I expect that one of the changes that the statistics will find, after teens have been able to readily get this drug, is an increase in the rates of STD’s.


14 posted on 03/24/2009 8:13:09 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I also expect the link to be denied, if the stats aren’t outright covered up or fallacious.


15 posted on 03/24/2009 8:16:19 AM PDT by MrB (irreconcilable: One of two or more conflicting ideas or beliefs that cannot be brought into harmony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

The age of consent for sexual intercourse under NY law is 17. That’s why.


16 posted on 03/24/2009 8:16:54 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (So then my skinny date sez, "Does Lane Bryant sell designer jeans?" and that's why the boss hates me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: meandog

The lame stream media report on this included a comment that there is a push to permit this morning after pill to all women regardless of age (yes, they used the word women). So, they want to allow girls as young as ? to have access to a pill meant to kill life - I’m wondering if this is meant to push an agenda to allow girls as young as 10 or 11 to engage in sexual activity. These are really sick and depraved individuals.


17 posted on 03/24/2009 8:24:42 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier presently instructing at Ft. Benning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Also note that there will be instances of statutory rape that go unreported and unprosecuted as the girls “pretend” that nothing ever happened because they got rid of the shame of the baby.

Just as Planned Parenthood coerces girls to lie about their ages and the circumstances of who impregnated them.

18 posted on 03/24/2009 8:27:51 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ("I certainly hope he (Bush) doesnÂ’t succeed" - Democratic strategist James Carville 9-11-2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Well, we all know it was a “political” decision to restrict minors’ access to this drug in the first place!

...and THIS court would NEVER let politics enter into their decision-taking process... NO... Never!


19 posted on 03/24/2009 8:28:59 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Hmmmmm. That’s the same argument “The One” used in his stem-cell speech. Is there a pattern developing?

Oh, no, THAT couldn’t be. I’d better stop being so PARANOID!!!


20 posted on 03/24/2009 8:30:56 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Good point. At what point does the legal age issue begin to extend into contract law as well?


21 posted on 03/24/2009 8:41:01 AM PDT by misterrob (FUBO----Just say it, Foooooooooooooo Boooooooowwwwww. Smooth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

“how is some pharmacy supposed to know if a fat teenager is not 6 months preggers and this drug could kill her AND the baby”

Because Plan B doesn’t work if you’re already pregnant.


22 posted on 03/24/2009 8:44:04 AM PDT by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coop71

http://www.cpcanchorage.com/morning_after_pill.html


23 posted on 03/24/2009 8:51:08 AM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Of course they are. Feminists and sexual libertines view abortion as a sacrament. And the younger girls learn to be sexually promiscuous, the more likely they are to become loyal Democratic voters. It all makes sense.


24 posted on 03/24/2009 9:19:19 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

I’m sorry - I didn’t mean to criticize anyone on FR for moral posturing but I see how it was taken that way.

What irks me is the judge and the repro rights people claiming to be on the side of science and medicine when the judge made only a one year difference in policy. That’s not really a big enough platform to be donning the cloak of righteousness. You are right about the slippery slope - why should not the judge extend this access to a 15 y.o.? Or a 13 y.o.?

It’s certain that older girls will be buying this for their younger sisters or friends or brother’s girlfriends, which is one problem with making it non-prescription. And making it non-prescription didn’t change pregnancy rates, probably because of changes in behavior.


25 posted on 03/24/2009 9:41:02 AM PDT by heartwood (Tarheel in exile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Thanks, but I’m not going to go with biased sources.


26 posted on 03/24/2009 9:55:33 AM PDT by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: coop71

Oh, just with the drug manufacturer then? They have no skin in the game, do they?

Good Luck


27 posted on 03/24/2009 10:17:39 AM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Why stop at 17? Why stop at all? Hand the things out door- to-door and just turn over the keys to America to the crazies. They’re coming to take me away, hee hee ho hee.


28 posted on 03/24/2009 10:40:53 AM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart.........2012--can't come soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"Pro-life groups are dismayed that 17-year-old girls will now have unrestricted access to a drug that can produce abortion by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. But abortion rights groups celebrated the ruling, saying it takes politics out of science."

What an unexpected reaction [sarc].

29 posted on 03/24/2009 10:48:04 AM PDT by verity ("Lord, what fools we mortals be!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

What benefit would the drug manufacturer have in lying to the FDA about implantation? Further, it’s not the drug manufacturers who claim it doesn’t work on implantation. It’s separate studies that have been done over the years.

I’m pro-life. But I want facts about these issues, not hyped up, emotional jargon that may or may not be true. Quite frankly, information from pregnancy crisis centers tends to be inaccurate on facts.

I appreciate helping already pregnant women get the facts and NOT abort, but making false claims about birth control is just wrong. Plan B, thus far, appears to prevent fertilization, not stop an already fertilized egg from implanting. Or worse, like some uninformed folks claim, that it kills embryos, etc.

One more thing: A teenage girl can walk into any grocery store and buy vitamin c and abort or attempt to abort her baby. Where’s the outrage against vitamin c?


30 posted on 03/24/2009 10:48:55 AM PDT by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: coop71
This is not about abortion per se, it is about a pro abortion judge making a 17 yr old an “adult” who “the judge” says we must all presume will wisely and properly use a powerful drug

the drug manufacturer says “This won't harm you if you are already pregnant... but, oh by the way, don't take it if yo are already pregnant!”

The (balanced) clinic sites warn that taking Plan B hormones could cause complications in some patients and especially in girls who have diagnosed or undiagnosed medical conditions other than pregnancy and should NOT be used by girls who, for example, have diabetes or pelvic inflammatory disease (how many teen girls have STD’s? too many unfortunately).

That's why teenagers need a DOCTOR'S RX, not a judicial order

at age 17 (and below) I think a lot of teen customers will easily miss the “3 day window” for which this drug was intended to be used. Two very common thing among pregnant teen girls seems to be ..... procrastination, and denial

as for flooding a teenage body with hormones, one time- then maybe again next week, then maybe again...and again...

How many times is too many times? Especially when we are already awash in toxic exposures from babyhood or before?

Society will probably find out when young girls develop cancers or other abnormalities at younger ages. I doubt the manufacturer intended this to be a weekly post-party pill but there is absolutely nothing to stop this from happening

31 posted on 03/24/2009 11:07:40 AM PDT by silverleaf (Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: meandog
"Court Gives 17-Year-Old Girls Unrestricted Access to Morning-After Pill"

Oh well, judges are, after all, just lawyers in black robes. This one is no different, he's just drumming up business for ambulance chasers, who will be suing the morning after pill pushers for wrongful death suits after young girls start dropping dead from complications after taking the morning after pill.

Judges don't issue rulings based on morality anymore, nor think of the other problems that will stem from the morning after pill abused as a instant birth control pill, and "I can have sex with anyone anytime" pill. It doesn't prevent STD's either, so this judges daughter will still come home with something, like aids, instead of a baby.

32 posted on 03/24/2009 12:25:24 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
"Unfortunately too many teens younger than that may need such a pill if you know what I mean."

No,I don't know what you mean. Do you mean that girls should be sexually active younger than 17? Should not have to use condoms? Kill babies? what?

33 posted on 03/24/2009 12:30:04 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: meandog

If I were a pharmacist, I would insist upon a release form signed by the parents of the girl, indemnifying me from any liability resulting from the unsupervised (by a physician) use of a potentially dangerous medication.


34 posted on 03/24/2009 12:33:13 PM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot child is in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Will 17 yr old boys be given unrestricted access to 17 yr old girls next?


35 posted on 03/24/2009 12:34:29 PM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Will 17 yr old boys be given unrestricted access to 17 yr old girls next?

No, this is for politicians, not 17 year old boys.

36 posted on 03/24/2009 12:35:14 PM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (Want to make a conservative angry? Lie to him. Want to make a liberal angry? Tell him the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: meandog

OK, so a 17 year old can make this kind of monumental decision without any supervisory or parental input, yet an 18 yr old war vet can’t decide on his own whether or not he is ready to handle the effects of a beer...


37 posted on 03/24/2009 12:36:44 PM PDT by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

The point of the story, IMO, is that judges are seizing parental rights from the rightful owners and that burns me up as a libertarian! I could care less if a mother purchased the “Morning After Pill” for a daughter who experienced a sweaty night in the backseat of her boyfriend’s automobile; but a judge has no G-D right confiscating lawful authority from parents...17 YEAR OLDS ARE STILL CONSIDERED MINORS UNDER LAW!


38 posted on 03/24/2009 12:41:14 PM PDT by meandog (The only "Bush" sounding surname worth a damn belongs to NASCAR's Kurt&Kyle Busch--not GEORGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Notice that this issue is outside the realm of our elected Congress, where all legislative power is supposed to be.

Congress kicks the tough decisions to unelected bureaucrats at FDA, EPA, etc and gets to wash their hands of the matter. The issue goes to the judiciary, where the despotic branch and the unelected branch decide what will be law. It is an unconstitutional situation that denies the people any input via their representatives.

39 posted on 03/24/2009 1:45:03 PM PDT by Jacquerie (More Central Planning is not the solution to the failure of Central Planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Child rights advocates are hard at work destroying the lives of children.

You cannot trust parents, can you?

Now, a bureaucrat really cares about your kid.


40 posted on 03/24/2009 1:54:09 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: coop71

Some Random Thoughts:

Bush Administration ruled the age to use it at 18. Now it’s 17. Not a big difference ... I do understand the parental right issue which brings me to my next point:

Parent’s rights are always over-ruled by government knows best judges... this is nothing new. It has been on-going.

But then I thought about this issue:

A child’s decision involving pregnancy issues can not be kept from a parent ... It is the parent’s right to know, However, IMO a parent can not make a decision for the child involving the pregnancy without the child’s agreement, unless it involves a medical situation ...

Hmmm ...

Regardless,

The morning after pill is a lot BETTER alternative than Abortion.


41 posted on 03/24/2009 1:54:25 PM PDT by 08bil98z24 (War on Drug supporters are enemies of the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: meandog
But abortion rights groups celebrated the ruling, saying it takes politics out of science.

No, it actually injects politics into it. It is an affront to parents and a gift to adults who are grooming these kids for hypersexuality.

The college psychologists who deal with the aftermath of teen sexuality, abortion and the modern sex game - hooking up, will tell you just how devastating all this feminism is on the feminine sex. These girls play along and have friends with benefits, hoping to land a meaningful relationship. In the end their self-esteem is shot, they feel like dirt and it takes years to stabilize them.

If we taught Drivers Ed like we teach Sex Ed our roadways would be deathtraps.

42 posted on 03/24/2009 1:58:42 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide

Here you are again today with an insightful comment. Are you really a professor?


43 posted on 03/24/2009 1:59:24 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
yet an 18 yr old war vet can’t decide on his own whether or not he is ready to handle the effects of a beer...

At least the alcohol issue has a constitutional amendment to go along with it ...

No American is allowed to consume any street drug recreationally, or consume a street drug even if it has a medical benefit and is doctor prescribed because of an unconstitutional law voted on by no one ...

Medical Marijuana via doctor prescription has been voted for by the people in many states, yet the Feds restrict access using unconstitutional means such as the Scheduling acts.

Sure, its ok to put massive amounts of engineered chemicals in your body, but you can not smoke something naturally growing such as pot.

Its for our children ...

44 posted on 03/24/2009 2:02:11 PM PDT by 08bil98z24 (War on Drug supporters are enemies of the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 08bil98z24

Please please please don’t use any argument made by me to pursue any argument defending medical MJ, recreational MJ, or even MJ flavored jelly beans.

My argument goes only to the age at which one is allowed to make decisions which are legal yet age restricted.

If you want to comment on which items are legal leave me the heck out of it. I’ve seen up close and personal the destruction that comes with supposedly safe recreational drugs. I’ve never used the stuff and never intend to, but I’ve been the one left to pick up the broken pieces of shattered families on more than one occasion.


45 posted on 03/24/2009 2:09:38 PM PDT by BlueNgold (... Feed the tree!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Thanks for the kind words. I try my best to have understanding of an issue and help others gain understanding.


46 posted on 03/24/2009 2:23:13 PM PDT by Professor_Leonide (I said to the young man who showed me a photo, "Who can ever be sure what is behind a mask?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: coop71

There are “alternative medicine” sources that describe using vitamin C to induce abortion. None of them seem more than anecdotal “I’ve taken megadoses of vitamin C ten times and I’ve never gotten pregnant!” A quick search of medical literature doesn’t show anything of importance and obstetricians don’t warn their patients about vit. C.

I’ve looked at the literature on Plan B and its proponents make claims for both prevention of implantation and for no such thing but there is nothing definitive - I wish there were.

My own thought is that it shouldn’t prevent implantation by making the uterine lining inhospitable, because progesterone naturally rises after ovulation in any case.


47 posted on 03/24/2009 2:36:58 PM PDT by heartwood (Tarheel in exile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

I’m not disagreeing with you on 17 year olds making poor choices when it comes to what’s safe and smart, and what isn’t with regard to OTC meds. However, I don’t think most women/girls can afford to pop a $30+ pill (or 2) every week. Plus, they’d continually be getting spotting and/or a period and let’s face it - nothing can crash a party for a “party gal” quicker than that.


48 posted on 03/24/2009 5:26:35 PM PDT by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

Good points.

I’ve read quite a bit about ascorbic acid in high doses being used to attempt abortion. All anecdotal since I don’t know anyone personally who has done this, nor would I want to. I think it’s more of an herbalists drug of choice, along with black cohosh and a few others.


49 posted on 03/24/2009 5:32:23 PM PDT by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 08bil98z24

“The morning after pill is a lot BETTER alternative than Abortion.:

Bingo. But there are MANY who think the morning after pill is abortion. Unfortunately.


50 posted on 03/24/2009 5:33:53 PM PDT by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson