Morning after pill

[swampy]

You also have an obligation to protect your kids from predators. My biggest objection is that parents will not know their daughters got pregnant. And don't give me lame "some children don't have parents they can go to". This also takes the "age of consent" issue off the table because I don't think a 12 or 13 year old child can legally give consent in many states.

[Black]

swampy wrote:
You also have an obligation to protect your kids from predators. My biggest objection is that parents will not know their daughters got pregnant. And don't give me lame "some children don't have parents they can go to". This also takes the "age of consent" issue off the table because I don't think a 12 or 13 year old child can legally give consent in many states.

OK... think.... kid gets pregnant... no pill available... doesn't want parents to know.... what happens next?
That's your preferred scenario?

[cbelt3]

Swampy- there are many scenarios where your opinion seems reasonable. But the only real LEGAL question is " is this safe without a prescription". Answer yes ? Uncontrolled .

I mean , you could argue that candy causes cavities, which are harmful to children . So the sale of candy should require parental consent . Right ?

[Lemon Drop]

swampy wrote:
You also have an obligation to protect your kids from predators. My biggest objection is that parents will not know their daughters got pregnant.

I'm not sure I understand your concern about not knowing a daughter is pregnant.
Like other contraceptive products, the Plan B prevents pregnancy from happening to start with, it does not end an existing pregnancy. It is given to rape victims at the hospital.

Are you thinking RU486, the abortion drug? That is a different pharmaceutical product, and it's not available over the counter to anyone, of any age, in the US.

[hal]

Swampy - were you raped as a young girl?

Why are you assuming that every pregnant 12 year old girl is a victim of statutory rape? That just isn't true.

[PeterB]

Disclaimer: I am NOT a parent.

That being said, I think to myself-- if I had a 12-year old daughter, and she were-- God forbid-- raped or made the mistake of having unprotected sex... while I'd like to believe that she'd come to me or her mother, I could easily believe she wouldn't, and I might also even understand why not. Under those conditions, I'd be grateful for her to have access to this medication... why should a raped 12-year old be forced to give birth?

[Wild eep]

swampy wrote:
You also have an obligation to protect your kids from predators. My biggest objection is that parents will not know their daughters got pregnant. And don't give me lame "some children don't have parents they can go to". This also takes the "age of consent" issue off the table because I don't think a 12 or 13 year old child can legally give consent in many states.

Once again swampy rages with no real reason.

[Racer X]

hal wrote:
Swampy - were you raped as a young girl?

Why are you assuming that every pregnant 12 year old girl is a victim of statutory rape? That just isn't true.

well, for one thing, there isn't a state in our nation where 12 is a legal age of consent. No one, not even a parent, can legally give a 12 year old permission to have sexual intercourse.

[Racer X]

hal wrote:
[quote=swampy]
Most states don't recognize consensual sex at the age of 12 which was the age of the girl in the judges case ruling. Most states see that as statutory rape.

So...

What does that have to do with birth control? Why are you assuming that the father is 18+? Why does it matter?
The dangerous age spread in 48 months. So a 19 yo and a 14 year, 11 months, and 30 day old can't legally have sex, even if the age of consent in that state is 14. As long as one is under 18, and more than a 4 year spread, it is legally statutory rape. Many states don't even make exceptions if they are married.

I was just looking into this yesterday as my partner's oldest, a 17 yo boy, has been having sex with his 15 yo GF. In Washington state, the age of consent is 16. Since there isn't a 4 year spread, it isn't automatically statutory rape. BUT, under 16, she is legally a child in our state. Even her father can't legally give her permission to have sex. The state won't go after him, but the girl's father can have him drug into Family Court and he'll be screwed and likely charged with sexual assault. Since she, nor any one else can give permission, it is by deffinition without consent, hence assault.

[Black]

http://news.yahoo.com/risk-obama-pursuin...itics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama supports requiring girls younger than 17 to see a doctor before buying the morning-after pill. But fighting that battle in court comes with its own set of risks.

A federal judge in New York on Friday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to lift age restrictions on the sale of emergency contraception, ending the requirement that buyers show proof they're 17 or older if they want to buy it without a prescription.

The ruling accused the Obama administration in no uncertain terms of letting the president's pending re-election cloud its judgment when it set the age limits in 2011.

"The motivation for the secretary's action was obviously political," U.S. District Judge Edward Korman wrote in reference to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who made the 2011 decision.

The FDA had been poised to allow over-the-counter sales with no age limits when Sebelius took the unprecedented step of overruling the agency.

It says a lot about how strongly Swampy feels about something when she's willing to publicly ally with Obama.