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?
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
“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.
The age of consent for sexual intercourse under NY law is 17. That’s why.
Just as Planned Parenthood coerces girls to lie about their ages and the circumstances of who impregnated them.
Good point. At what point does the legal age issue begin to extend into contract law as well?
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?
It was the Food and Drug Administration (a federal agency) which had allowed Plan B to be sold over the counter only to 18 year olds. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts can reverse any decision of a federal agency that is "arbitrary, capricious or not in accordance with law." It appears that the basis for the decision is that the FDA was "arbitrary" because it ignored the recommendation of own panel of scientific advisors.