Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

[Jazzy]

The Food and Drug Administration must make emergency contraceptives available to girls of all ages within 30 days, a federal judge has ruled, saying the agency's decisions regarding the so-called morning-after pill were arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.



The ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman came as the result of a lawsuit brought by reproductive-rights advocates, who had sought to remove age and other restrictions on the so-called morning after pill.



The Center for Reproductive Rights and other groups have argued that contraceptives are being held to a different and non-scientific standard than other drugs, and that politics has played a role in decision-making. Social conservatives have said the pill is tantamount to abortion.



The morning-after pill currently is available without a prescription only to those 17 and older who can prove their age. Younger teenagers must get a prescription.



In 2011 the Food and Drug Administration had been prepared to lift a controversial age limit and make Plan B One-Step -- the nation's first over-the-counter emergency contraceptive -- available for purchase by people of any age without a prescription.



But in December of that year Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blocked the move, deciding that young girls shouldn't be able to buy it on their own. Sebelius said that while young girls are physically capable of bearing children, they might not properly understand how to use the emergency contraception without guidance from an adult.



President Barack Obama said at the time he supported Sebelius' decision.



In his ruling Judge Korman said Secretary Sebelius' directive to the FDA to reject Plan B One-Step for OTC sales forced the agency to ride roughshod over the policies and practices that it has consistently applied in considering applications for switches in drug status to over-the-counter availability.



The judge said the FDA decided after 11 months, 47,000 public comments and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars spent, that it did not need rulemaking on the subject.



He said the case isn't about the potential misuse of the morning-after pill by 11-year-olds. He said the contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter and the number of 11-year-olds likely to use the drugs was minuscule.

Full article



Do you think that this pill should be available to girls under the age of 17 without parental consent?

 

[DrLeftover]

There was a time when I would be outraged.



Now...



http://www.policymic.com/articles/3...rl-gives-birth-after-sexual-abuse-from-cousin





I just feel cold.

 

[Jazzy]

[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]

The victim's mother

learned[font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif] her daughter was pregnant only two months ago, when she was seven months along, after her school called and shared their suspicions.

I find this hard to believe that you wouldn't notice your 11 year daughter's obvious weight gain and breast enlargement. I also find it sad the 11 year old didn't feel she could talk to her mother about what was happening.



This is a horrible and disgusting thing this child went through. I can only hope that when this low-life gets to prison, the inmates will serve him with their own justice.

 

[Evil Eye]

Do you think that this pill should be available to girls under the age of 17 without parental consent?

Well yes. First off because the age of consent is 16 here and in some of your states. But mostly because, if they're going to have sex without parental consent (which they are), they should at least have access to birth control.

 

[Jazzy]

The whole misconception is that the morning-after-pill is a method of birth control. It's not. It's a method of aborting or preventing an unwanted pregnancy if taken 72 hours after having sex. This morning-after-pill is 79% more potent than regular birth control pills. Critics argue that having this type of pill will encourage younger girls to become more sexually active as they have a way of popping a pill and (hopefully) preventing them from becoming pregnant. I disagree with the critics. As these young girls will have sex anyway if they want to. The discussion here is if the parents have a right to know that their 10/11 year old girl is taking this type of pill without their knowledge and/or permission.

 

[Evil Eye]

The discussion here is if the parents have a right to know that their 10/11 year old girl is taking this type of pill without their knowledge and/or permission.

They should.

Not at the cost of these girls having sex without this pill/whatever, however.