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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 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