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!
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.