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.
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!