A federal judge ruled today that age restrictions on the morning-after pill must end within 30 days. That means consumers of any age will be able to buy the morning-after pill without a prescription — instead of women first having to prove they’re 17 or older, as they do today.

Here's the story.

http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/04/05/judge-makes-morning-after-pill-available-all/sGsHsMQWOEcVtj2kIXyoJL/story.html

What do you think of this?

Bravo to the wise judge Korman for being able to read the year on his calendar and bravely call out the FDA, the Obama Administration and right-wing America that champions indentured pregnant servitude and medieval treatment of women.

This post has been removed.

Lets provide 12-year olds with the means to slaughter babies, but we need to have restrictions in place that make it expensive and difficult to purchase a firearm. 

Those of you who have no regard for human life before birth will think the statement above is ridiculous and oppressive. everyone else will understand the connotation and hypocrisy of our society. 

In response to WE5NUTS' comment:

 

So out of touch with main-stream America. Screw my parental rights, I guess?

 

No.  You still have the right to mentally abuse your children by teaching them abstinence.

It's not the government's job to enforce traditional values. If parents want their children to have those values, they should teach them.

 

 

In response to tahos' comment:

Yes, as soon as this goes into effect those 12-year olds will be dropping their pants in droves in order to get pregnant and slaughter babies. Typical overreaction.

I think it will promote under age promiscuity, which the objective research shows to be a problem not only for the girls but for society as a whole.

Another ramification could be more disease as girls will get the morning after pill and take it instead of using a condom.

So in our country we don't think that a 14  year old is competent enough to make medical decisions for themselves, to sign contracts, to decide whether or not to go to school, to get a tattoo, to get a piercing, to drive a car, to buy cigarettes, to drink alcohol to work full time, to consent to sex...BUT they are competent enough to take a dangerous and potentially lethal drug without parental knowledge or medical supervision?????? What is wrong with you people who support this??  Perhaps you think we should get rid of ALL age limits on everything since now children are apparently competent decision makers and they don't need their parents.

deleted

 

 

In response to UserName99's comment:

It's mental abuse to teach kids that sex has life altering consequences, emotionally and physically, and that therefore such an action should only be taken when one is prepared to handle such consequences??? Yeah, what awful parents, wanting their children to be all responsible. Imagine that.

 

Indeed, the medical fact is that teens do not have the full capacity of the frontal lobes of their brains yet; they are, in fact, NOT physiologically capable of making adult judgements about adult things like sex, medication, and the lifelong ramifications thereof.

Aside from the social and emotional ramifications, what is to stop girls from stock piling these pills and using them instead of disease preventing condoms?  

I'm befuddled as to how anyone can truly see this as a good thing for our children.

The Netherlands has completely open access to these medications. And an age of consent of 12. The abortion rate for teens is lower. The preganancy rate for teens is ONE TWELFTH the USA.

If you treat teens responsibility, rather than endless "no no no you can't do that" they grow up a lot faster. It really isnt that hard to understand.

In response to kargiver's comment:

Yet the evidence abounds overseas that this is nonsense. American teenagers are the most immature on the planet, by a very wide margin.  Cause and effect perhaps?

 

MRIs are not nonsense; the area of the brain that controls judgement is the last to develop fully.  If we are raising our kids to be extra irresponsible, that is a compounding issue, obviously, but it is a fact, either way. Yes, US kids are out of control on the whole.  We should not, therefore, afford them freedoms as if they were as mature as other countries' teens.

In response to kargiver's comment:

Cause and effect - as I said. Are american teen brains different somehow? A different species perhaps? Judgement is learned. This is why the judgement of a 16 year old Dutch native seems to be much better than many US 25 year olds.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to stevef's comment:

 

In response to kargiver's comment:

 

We should not, therefore, afford them freedoms as if they were as mature as other countries' teens.

 

Cause and effect - as I said. Are american teen brains different somehow? A different species perhaps? Judgement is learned. This is why the judgement of a 16 year old Dutch native seems to be much better than many US 25 year olds.

 

 

 

your disrespectful tone is offputting.  I'm a very analytical person with a math degree and career in engineering; you shouldn't assume I'm any less intelligent or fact-driven than you are just because we disagree.

11 and 12 year old girls aren't going to start having sex because of access to this pill. However, their access to the pill can help conceal the fact that they're having sex. An 11, 12, 13 and even 14 year old girl that is having sex is in trouble and needs help from some responsible adult. An adult abusing a young girl now has another way to conceal his actions.

Any drug approved by the FDA should not be subject to an age requirement UNLESS age plays a role in whether or not the drug is prescribed (ie, viagra is not routinely prescribed to 15 yo boys).  If you have working appartus that the drug is directed towards, you need the drug for one of it's intended uses, and a doctor prescribes it to you, then there is zero reason why age alone should prevent you from obtaining said drug. 

Parents of 14 yo girls who need morning after pills have bigger problems regarding their child than the fact that such a drug may be available to the child. 

In response to tahos' comment:

A 1-day old fertilized egg is not a baby.

deleted

 

  

In response to MegGriffin's comment:

1 day-old zygote (there's really no such thing as a fertilized egg, once an egg is fertilized it's not longer an egg) certainly is a child, a human being, a child being an unborn or recently born person: 

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops.”

“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

In response to Butterflyz's comment:

A fertlilzed egg, zygote as you accurately write, is the earliest developmental stage of an embryo but it is not child.  It is the beginning of life, I agree, but it is not a person and won't be for quite some time.