Justice Department considering whether to appeal ruling on morning-after pill

New Posts

Reader

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
93
http://www.wtxl.com/news/justice-de...cle_75591160-9e5b-11e2-9808-001a4bcf6878.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department hasn't yet said whether it will appeal today's ruling by a federal judge, striking down the age restrictions on the over-the-counter purchases of the morning-after pill.

The judge said the restrictions are "arbitrary" and "unreasonable," and that they must end within 30 days. That means consumers of any age could buy the emergency contraception without a prescription. As it stands now, women have to prove they're 17 or older.

Article states FDA had been planning to remove the age limits in 2011 but:

......Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled her own scientists, citing concern for young girls. President Barack Obama said he supported the decision.

More at link.....
 
But social conservatives are criticizing the ruling. Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council says it "places the health of young girls at risk" -- because it removes the involvement of parents and medical professionals.

I don't really know what to think on this ruling. I am pro choice yet.

If I had a 12 year old pregnant daughter I sure as h*ll what to know who did this so he can go to prison, not have her abort the baby to be perhaps abused again by this male, unknown to me. If the child could obtain contraception on their own, who will know if an under aged child had been statutorily raped? If they got away with it doing it to one child, will they do it to another?

What if the child thought she was pregnant, not by intercourse but some misconception? Is this healthy for a child to take the pill who is not really pregnant?
 
Show Me said:
But social conservatives are criticizing the ruling. Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council says it "places the health of young girls at risk" -- because it removes the involvement of parents and medical professionals.

I don't really know what to think on this ruling. I am pro choice yet.

If I had a 12 year old pregnant daughter I sure as h*ll what to know who did this so he can go to prison, not have her abort the baby to be perhaps abused again by this male, unknown to me. If the child could obtain contraception on their own, who will know if an under aged child had been statutorily raped? If they got away with it doing it to one child, will they do it to another?

What if the child thought she was pregnant, not by intercourse but some misconception? Is this healthy for a child to take the pill who is not really pregnant?
Click to expand...

There is no age limit for purchasing condoms. Do you have the same concern for a (theoretical) 12 year old son?
 
This specifically has to do with the Day After Pill (some brands consist of 2 pills). I see nothing wrong with making it available to younger people over the counter.
 
Like it or not, teenagers and post-menarche girls and post pubescent boys are owners of their bodies. Not their parents, not the government. Any person at risk of becoming pregnant or impregnating someone should have access to birth control, including morning after/plan b just as easily as they can obtain tampons and pads, no matter what their age.

I don't see how allowing access to this pill/s makes any difference when it comes to possible cases or rape or abuse. Whether or not a pregnancy is averted, the young person will still have been assaulted. With access, at least a 12 year old wont be further traumatized by having to suffer through a pregnancy on top of it.

From what my doctor has told me, there is little risk when it comes to age with this pill. The sudden concern for the health of young girls on the part of conservatives is beyond suspect, IMO. its just a way for them to keep putting obstacles in the way of obtaining contraceptives.

I keep a pack of plan B in my house, prescribed by the pediatrician. My teen daughter knows where it is, knows how to use it, and has been told no questions asked if I find it gone one day. In fact, I told her that if I find it gone, rather than angry or upset, I'd be proud that I have a responsible daughter who knows how to handle a possible serious health situation.

She's also on the pill, and also still a virgin. And we talk about sex allll the time lol. Preparation is the key, folks. Not pretending that teens don't have sex and keeping them from being able to get the contraceptives they need if they magically become pregnant lol. :rolleyes:
 
gxm said:
There is no age limit for purchasing condoms. Do you have the same concern for a (theoretical) 12 year old son?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, I have nephews....but this thread is about the abortion pill for girls.

I'd definitely feel a whole lot different if one of my girls had become pregnant at 11 years old versus 16 years old. I'd not deny them an abortion if it were up to me. I'd have to give parental consent for my 11 year old to get a vaccine or go on a field trip...I certainly want to know if my 11 year old was pregnant.

Like I said, I don't really know what to make of this ruling,

And everyone has their own opinions...this is just mine.
 
Plan B/morning after pill prevents conception - the implantation of a fertilized egg. It's not RU-486/mifepristone, which ends an early pregnancy. They are two different things.
 
AnaTeresa said:
Plan B/morning after pill prevents contraception - the implantation of a fertilized egg. It's not RU-486/mifepristone, which ends an early pregnancy. They are two different things.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean conception?
 
TrackerSam said:
Condoms aren't drugs.
Click to expand...

But the same logic applies, the assumption that the 12-year old is being sexually abused by an adult or older teen. Wouldn't the commenter want the 12-year boy's (theoretical) "abuser" arrested? Or is it okay for 12-year old boys to have sex but not 12-year old girls? And is it okay for 12-year old boys to prevent unwanted pregnancy but not 12-year old girls… The 12-year old girls should be made to suffer but not the boys?
 
Yeah, if they had a pill to make my 16 year old son "shoot blanks" until he has made a way for himself and a family in life, I would approve of it.
I have an older son that was born when I was 17. And my life has been hard! I don't want my children to go through that.
 
gxm said:
But the same logic applies, the assumption that the 12-year old is being sexually abused by an adult or older teen. Wouldn't the commenter want the 12-year boy's (theoretical) "abuser" arrested? Or is it okay for 12-year old boys to have sex but not 12-year old girls? And is it okay for 12-year old boys to prevent unwanted pregnancy but not 12-year old girls… The 12-year old girls should be made to suffer but not the boys?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Something you injest can never be "the same" as something you wear. :facepalm:
The post I responded to was about age limits. Anyone of any age, with 50 cents, can buy a condom at a gas station men's room - this proves what exactly?
I made no reference to any of the rest of it.
 
TrackerSam said:
No it doesn't. Something you injest can never be "the same" as something you wear. :facepalm:
I made no reference to any of the rest of it.
Click to expand...

But I did (make reference to "the rest of it"). Here are the member's own words: If the child could obtain contraception on their own, who will know if an under aged child had been statutorily raped? If they got away with it doing it to one child, will they do it to another?

I asked if the member had the same concern for a boy as a girl. Considering this logic, shouldn't there also be an age limit for purchasing condoms?
 
gxm said:
But I did (make reference to "the rest of it"). Here are the member's own words: If the child could obtain contraception on their own, who will know if an under aged child had been statutorily raped? If they got away with it doing it to one child, will they do it to another?

I asked if the member had the same concern for a boy as a girl. Considering this logic, shouldn't there also be an age limit for purchasing condoms?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but wearing a condom will do no harm but injesting a pill might.
You've never in the history of the condom ever needed a prescription for them, like you don't need a prescription to buy balloons for a party, and for the same reason, they are harmless.
Also, a male child being raped wouldn't need a condom to begin with. He's either being raped anally or an older woman is on him - he's not going to get pregnant and he's too young to be sued for paternity and wouldn't be sued if he was raped.
 
TrackerSam said:
Perhaps, but wearing a condom will do no harm but injesting a pill might.
You've never in the history of the condom ever needed a prescription for them, like you don't need a prescription to buy balloons for a party, and for the same reason, they are harmless.
Also, a male child being raped wouldn't need a condom to begin with. He's either being raped anally or an older woman is on him - he's not going to get pregnant and he's too young to be sued for paternity and wouldn't be sued if he was raped.
Click to expand...

Condoms are also used to prevent sexually transmitted diseases or hinder crime detection, so his (theoretical) rapist might want him to use condoms to hide the rape. You're so focused on the pregnancy part of the equation that you can't see that the notion of using the purchase of contraception to reveal/detect sexual abuse is the same for either a boy child or a girl child.

I've heard of kids choking on balloons, so maybe we should set age restrictions for them too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 1,420 (members: 92, guests: 1,328)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
1,328
Total visitors
1,420
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,791
Messages
17,958,933
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top