Skip to comments.Court Gives 17-Year-Old Girls Unrestricted Access to Morning-After Pill
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 ...
so is Anthony Kennedy....it can be a crap shoot.
just so she doesnt want to join the military or some other major life decison that requires parental consent
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
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?
But a school official (or a druggist!) can’t give an underage kid even an aspirin without written permission.
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
Do I hear 16, how about 15...........
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.
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.
“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.
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!
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!
“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.
I also expect the link to be denied, if the stats aren’t outright covered up or fallacious.
The age of consent for sexual intercourse under NY law is 17. That’s why.
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.
Just as Planned Parenthood coerces girls to lie about their ages and the circumstances of who impregnated them.
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!
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!!!
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.