There’s no point debating whether such young girls should be sexually active. Obviously, given the potential consequences, both physical and psychological, the answer is no.Potential consequences?
It seems to me that when you're talking about girls under the age of 15, if there is an occasion to buy a morning-after pill, there is an occasion to report a serious crime.
पोस्ट्स
१४१ टिप्पण्या:
Is now the time to start the story among young boys that if they themselves take the pill before sex they will not get the girl pregnant?
It's all about women's health not about women's behavior.
Free to choose actions; not so free when it comes to consequences.
The toughest questions in this arena arise, it seems to me, from incest. If you can't separate the child from the abuser, it may get worse fast.
Should the penalty for the child's failure to report the crime be...pregnancy? I'd sure hope not.
It seems to me that when you're talking about girls under the age of 14, if there is an occasion to buy a morning-after pill, there is an occasion to report a serious crime.
Not if the boy is pretty much the same age.
But as regards the safety of the morning after pill on minor females, I sure wish I could believe that the "science" behind the bland assertion that the pill is safe were real science and not politically-motivated science.
Thankfully I have sons.
Our culture has elevated the physical act of having sex at any age to Olympian heights--- physical and psychological consequences be damned.
Our culture has elevated the physical act of having sex at any age to Olympian heights--- physical and psychological consequences be damned.
Liberty is good and good for everyone, and should not be constrained by the state unless the person exercising it is harming or likely to harm someone else. Where a medical product is safe, it is not the business of the FDA to play nanny. It is up to parents to determine how to communicate with their children and raise them properly. Children should not be raised by a village.
And no, when two thirteen year-olds have sex, there is not a serious crime involved.
One positive thing about making this drug over the counter is we no longer will have to suffer through periodic stories of walleyed pharmacists "standing for their beliefs" by refusing to distribute it.
The morning-after pill would not be purchased by under-14s. It would be purchased by their abusers and given to them.
Prevent a major crime by being permissive of a minor one?
I don't know... Its all lose lose.
Should we order our laws to serve the most dysfunctional in society? (In this specific instance, that would be people who have sex with children.) Will this approach mitigate misery or will it only propagate it further?
Reporting the crime is a way to deal with the perp, who is probably a 14 year old boy. But you still have to address the girl's problem (her parents, if they're in the picture, surely will, as will the boy's). A one-size-fits-all rule only works well if reality only comes in that one size. Statutory rape, unlike (say) homicide, is that kind of rule, and creates lots of its own problems.
I changed the age in the post to "under the age of 15," which is relevant in the legal case. I'd said "under the age of 14," because I was thinking 14 and under.
(Just trying to be accurate.)
Are we planning to trust that Mr. Too Old Boyfriend or Mr. Incest Creep has a girl's best interests at heart and won't be giving her these pills all the time?
I can't believe that people are just accepting that this is unequivocally safe, in the sort of real life, directions be damned, usages that can be realistically expected. The people claiming its safety cannot be trusted, and should not be trusted.
Trying to look at the bright side gets really difficult when its getting dark.
If there are no parents at 14...
I say just give it to them...
Don't we already give them condoms?
Is this more effective?
The pill is the equalizer?
I don't know. Make up a rational that will allow the sane generation that's left, enough peace of mind to be able to sleep at night until we die off. And then, they can live happily ever after.
Statutory Rape is something only adults know is illegal. Seriously, what percentage of 15 year olds know it's a serious crime to have sex with your girlfriend? Half the country are rapists? Aren't both participants guilty of rape if they are under age, and isn't that clearly nuts?
Amazing what happens when you cast aside centuries of Western civilization and tradition.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that barbarism is going on here.
One prohibition after another will fall. The blowjob on stage is just a warning of what follows. Soon you'll be blogging about legalized pedophilia.
The morning after pill causes extreme cramping that should be monitored by a medical professional.
Its ironic that these same 15 year old girls are not allowed to carry OTC pain medication for menstrual cramps in schools.
Serious crime? Really?
A girl of 14 can be sexually active with a boy of 13, or vice versa, with nothing involved that would be regarded as a crime if they were both five years older. It may be by her own initiative, or with her willing cooperation. I cannot say that it is "consensual" because the law denies that they have the capacity to consent: but I really think it's a problem to confuse a legal fiction about consent with the actuality of whether the act was consensual in the normal, everyday sense—it makes it difficult to discuss whether the girl was threatened, or pressures, or chose to participate, or perhaps even actively sought to participate. And it leads to problematic decisions such as putting two adolescents on sexual predators lists for the rest of their lives—for getting caught doing while millions of adolescents are plainly doing. All from treating as a "serious crime" an act that would not be a crime at all if not for the ages of the participants.
Instead of trying to enforce laws that aren't working with harsher penalties, wouldn't it make better sense to come up with different laws that actually do some good? Or at least to repeal laws that do harm?
Mandatory reporting of girls who buy the morning-after pill will result in girls learning not to prevent implantation, out of fear of legal consequences, and thus to more such girls giving birth while still minors. Is that a preferable outcome?
Hope one of the side effects is not headaches because the girl wont be able to get an aspirin at school without permission.
What about the right of parents to protect their children? A 15-year-old can’t get Tylenol at school without parental permission, but we have no hesitation about children taking a far more serious drug without oversight?
Drill SGT: I have to have the doctor sign a paper that says the school nurse can give my son a Tylenol at school if he has a headache. I have actually gone into school to give it to him myself so I don't have to jump through the doctor's note hoop.
The morning-after pill will save the pregnant 13 yr-old from serious health consequences. If she doesn't take the pill, she risks serious health consequences.
Nothing should stand in her way: neither requirement of parental consent nor the need to present identification to buy the drug.
Common sense.
Common sense also tells us that the 17 yr-old has a right to choose her sex partner, whether he be 19 or 45.
The Lefties create the climate and then say, "Well, we can't stop them from doing it, so we'll just give them something that can be catastrophically abused to eliminate those bad consequences".
Better dead than "punished with a baby".
harrogate said...
One positive thing about making this drug over the counter is we no longer will have to suffer through periodic stories of walleyed pharmacists "standing for their beliefs" by refusing to distribute it.
Yes, because letting some ditzy 14 year old hemorrhage to death is her right, right?
More, not less, should be over the counter.
Can't anyone see the downside of a fifteen year old girl having sex, even with a peer? The bet here is that she's looking for something sex can't provide. Also the existence of such a pill makes it that much easier for her to be pressured or to make a bad decision. The issues associated with sexual repression have been endlessly dramatized, but those associated with sexual permissiveness are usually minimized or even glamorized.
Girls often reach menarche at the age of 12. Boys are sexually mature by 14. Wishing it weren't so won't change the biological facts. Is it a crime for a 14 year old boy to have sex with a 13 year old girl? In my great grandparents day, the crime was if he didn't marry her.
harrogate said...
More, not less, should be over the counter.
Sound like Herr harrogate is a bit of a glibertine and also favors the sexualization childhood.
Hmmm...have we seen this character in a different guise?
It's another battle in the war on sluts.
El Pollo,
If you're depending on the inflated power of health insurers, doctors, and pharmacists to do something about the "sexualization of children," you might be a redneck.
jimbino said...
The morning-after pill will save the pregnant 13 yr-old from serious health consequences. If she doesn't take the pill, she risks serious health consequences.
Yes, because it's generally agreed the MAP also cures venereal disease when taken.
What we need to do is find a way to remove the soul...then the body can merrily go along fornicating and aborting and so forth.
When there is no soul, then why not let the liberal fascists impose all the controls they want over here, while declaring new "rights" over here.
And the voyeurs on Internet, Blogosphere and Twitterverse can endlessly amuse themselves, chattering and scolding, while the performers get ever younger and ever more feverish.
All for our amusement.
Hint: freedom makes no sense if it's merely a freedom-from; but only as a freedom-for.
I suppose all those stupid stick-in-the-mud parents will just have to wait a few years until they're allowed to worry about the inevitable consequences of administering their children massive doses of hormones.
But then again, parents are not permitted to care about the very real, well-documented possible side effects of standard birth control pills. So maybe I'm being too optimistic here.
I really wonder if some of these women's health advocates consider trivial complications like permanent involuntary sterilization a feature, and not a bug.
harrogate scolds: If you're depending on the inflated power of health insurers, doctors, and pharmacists to do something about the "sexualization of children," you might be a redneck.
I swear I saw your head turn 360 degrees like an owl's to fix its stare.
This will all become moot when it's discovered that you can use the morning after pill to cook meth.
This just breaks my heart. What message are we sending to young girls about our expectations for them?
Dress like a hooker, hold up slutty Beyoncé as a role model, sleep with your date, and take a morning after pill. And they're only 15. Oy.
I HAVE a 16 year old daughter. They're not emotionally ready for this - trust me.
El Pollo,
You have some wit, but no point. Or as the Wolf would say, "just because you Are a character, doesn't mean you Have character."
"Amazing what happens when you cast aside centuries of Western civilization and tradition."
Um...people having sex at young ages is very much a part Western civilization and tradition.
This is going to sound awful, but it seems we legislate nationally based upon the worst case scenarios in our urban centers.
Um...No, there used to be religious observance, shame and social opprobrium.
Of course people had sex underage. But in the 1950s the government wasn't making it state policy.
@ Althouse
"It seems to me that when you're talking about girls under the age of 15, if there is an occasion to buy a morning-after pill, there is an occasion to report a serious crime."
Amazingly enough that is one of the arguments put forth by social conservatives. That you are echoing their points just makes you a reactionary xianist!
/sarcasm
Oh, if we could only bring back the 50's. This seems to be a common theme.
In my circle of high school girlfriends back in the 80's, one got pregnant at 15 with her 15 year old boyfriend. They stayed together as a couple and married at 18 right after graduation, they are still together.
Who should've been reported to the police?
Hahahahaha. Pleasantville nostalgia . They talk as if they think "Happy Days" was a documentary.
@ harrogate
"One positive thing about making this drug over the counter is we no longer will have to suffer through periodic stories of walleyed pharmacists "standing for their beliefs" by refusing to distribute it."
True enough. Since it is OTC that means the pharmacist doesn't even have to stock it any longer.
I come from an Irish Catholic background, so this is not my area of greatest expertise. I have heard from many reputable people that sex is fun, and I have no reasaon to doubt their credibility. I just don't think that Formula One race care driving, sexual affairs, and eating too many sweets should be encouraged in our young people......I know that many here will claim that I'm prudish but there are better ways to support women's reproductive health than by snipping the spinal columns of their infants......Why can't libs ever admit that they are standing at the bottom of their own slippery slope and that shit runs downhill.
Having spent the last 250 years following Rousseau's ideas of how society should be ordered--or, more accurately, should have no order--we now have a large and permanent underclass that not only costs the rest of us a lot of monyue, but far more important, is itself sunk in dysfunction and pathology. As Motnihan said, we have defined dysfunction down, and the dysfunctional is climbing up the socio-economic ladder, with much of the "working class" acting like the "underclass" of 50 yeas ago (see Charles Murray). We have tried with great effort and success to divorce the act of sex from any larger meaning or context. We have elevated the government to be our keeper and protector, not just collectively (defense, public health, a fair system of laws and courts) but individually.
Now we are reduced to having this kinds of discussion, and theree are no good answers. It's not statutory rape if the boy is underage, too. Make it an automatic crime report and maybe the girl doesn't get the drug but becomes pregnant, with all that implies. Don't follow up and criminal activity goes unpunished, and continues.
The better option of maintaining a moral society that respects individuals but places bounds, legal and cultural, on acceptable behavior, is long gone.
What to do, now?
The 1850s or 1750s, if you please.
Moynihan's said "Define Deviancy down." sorry
Nope, they don't have to stock it. But of course that won't matter since they no longer have a stranglehold on the selling of it. It's more like a convenience store deciding not to stock cigarettes or beer or orange Fanta.
It is passing strange when people laugh at our ancestors as if they were idiots who knew nothing of the world.
You think they knew not of underage sex?
Then you are a moron.
That's right! People who want 15 year olds to wait until they are more mature before they begin their sexual lives are such moralizing, old fashioned fuddy duddies!
But she cannot buy cigarettes, beer, or even spray paint under 15.
Or was your point something else?
They should teach children the proper use of condoms in preschool. It's never too early to prevent AIDS, pregnancy, and other diseases (or burdens).
Children should be sexually empowered from an early age, right?
Why do we arbitrarily discriminate based on age or stage of development?
Sometimes it's rape. Sometimes it's rape-rape.
Sometimes it's murder. Sometimes it's "reproductive rights".
Sometimes it's science. Sometimes it's inconvenient.
All the time it is selective.
Pogo yes my point was something else. It was to say that by making this drug over the counter, it takes away the Pharmacist's heretofore artificial right to moralize with wares.
We want our children to do what we teach them. Unfortunately when they are not in our presence they sometimes do just the opposite, it's part of learning to be an adult and sometimes the consequences are very serious indeed.
EMD said
This is going to sound awful, but it seems we legislate nationally based upon the worst case scenarios in our urban centers.
5/4/13, 10:37 AM
---------
It's very true. So many laws for all of us are based on people who are unwilling or unable to take care of themselves (or their kids).
So if a 14-year-old's 15-year-old boyfriend is supposed to be charged with having sex with a 14-year-old, why is the 14-year-old girl not charged with having sex with a 15-year-old?
The next time a Democrat says they want abortion legal, safe and rare, they only mean legal. The safe and rare statements are only to make sure that Conservatives, you know, those of us who try to teach our daughters and sons that sexual intercourse at 15 is not a good idea, lose a talking point. But everyone knows that abortion is legal, and not always safe physically, almost never safe psychologically, and not rare among the Democrat Party base. But spouting nonsense talking points is the hallmark of a Democrat.
Oh, if we could only bring back the 50's. This seems to be a common theme.
Even the Left gets caught up in that one with all their talk of 1950's style tax code. See for example, Michael Moore.
We can circumvent the problem of not reporting a serious crime by getting rid of statutory rape laws.
Do we really need them anymore? Do they make sense in a culture that, by its actions, glorifies teen sex?
And 15 year olds are adults at Chateau Harrogate?
I did get a kick out of one Ezra Klein talking about women not having access to plan B, regarding the under 15 restrictions.
Women under 15!
harrogate said...
Pogo yes my point was something else. It was to say that by making this drug over the counter, it takes away the Pharmacist's heretofore artificial right to moralize with wares.
Shorter harrogate: there shouldn't be controlled substances.
Now give us a jimbino rant about smoking pot in National Parks.
So 14 is now going to be the new age of consent? If they are old enough to independantly get an abortion or the MAB without parental consent then lets dispense with situational adulthood and declare 14 the new age for majority. They can then get jobs, support themselves and pay taxes.
Diggs thinks abortions and consumption of this pill align with party affiliation. The stupid is strong with him.
Oh I see.
Harrogate is really Roman Polanski.
That explains a lot.
Will taking the morning after pill cause more girls to imagine they can't be pregnant, and therefore delay recognition they are?
"I can't be pregnant. I took plan B"
Imagine it pushing us toward more later term abortions.
My man POGO is slipping in his dotage. Did he forget the simulated blow-job Kathy Griffen performed on Anderson Cooper on National TV during NBCs' New Years Eve coverage? We've got a trend-line going..
LilyBart:
Women, and, apparently, girls, should ensure they remain available for sex.
You've come a long way, Baby!
Barefoot, pregnant, taxed, and exploited. It's no wonder "reproductive rights" were invented to replace self-moderating, responsible behavior.
That said, while humans are sexual creatures, they are also social creatures. There is more to our lives than our sexual behavior.
It's odd that progress has entailed defining human beings by their sexual behavior (instant or immediate gratification), rather than its outcome (procreation). This is not innovative, but this perspective is typically restricted to certain retrogressive regimes (e.g. slavery, feudalism). It is less common (i.e. exceptional) in civilized societies. It is certainly less common among moral people.
Chortling harrogate
Pogo, no I don't think 15 year olds are adults. Not even when preening criminal prosecutors want them to be. I'm more interested here in the OTC element than the age limit issue, which I have not once dismissed in this thread.
In response to the other idiot commenter, I didn't say there shouldn't be controlled substances. But the moral views of a pharmacist, nor the bank account of an insurer, nor the signing power of a doctor, belong in the rubric for what should or should not be controlled.
As for smoking pot in National Parks. That would ruin our country if that were to happen, naturally.
So if a 14-year-old's 15-year-old boyfriend is supposed to be charged with having sex with a 14-year-old, why is the 14-year-old girl not charged with having sex with a 15-year-old?
5/4/13, 11:02 AM
Actually both can be charged. What is bizarre is the government is encouraging as a matter of public policy statutory rape.
***Sorry--CNN viz NBC--either too much or not enough Brandy in my coffee this am..
harrogate:
Not individually. Perhaps not in practice. However, principles define the party and the predisposition of its members.
The violation of the most fundamental human right to life cannot be measured in degrees and is an absolute reflection of not only the party but also its members.
You see a pharmacist shouldn't have moral views. Or someone who runs a faith based organization like Catholic Charities. Their morality must be adjusted to the lowest common denominator. They are not allowed live their lives the way they want. To live their faith.
They have to succumb to the morally degenerate dictates of harrogate and Gosnell and Obama who think it is no big deal for babies to have sex....or to kill a baby if it is born alive after an abortion.
You see choice is only about killing babies. You don't get the choice to not be part of it.
n.n said...
LilyBart:
Um...perhaps I should have indicated that I was employing sarcasm?
When a monstrous value system is given free range it's no surprise that monsters emerge from it.
All definitions have to change, all judgement must be suspended, all words cease to have meaning, all people become subjects and real consequences must be denied.
What a wonderful world.
Baron plays the violin for pharmacists' religious rights...
"You see a pharmacist shouldn't have moral views . . . They are not allowed live their lives the way they want. To live their faith."
.... and Misses the Point entirely (I suspect on purpose).
They are entirely welcome to their views and to "live their faith." But when it comes to OTC drugs, in "liv[ing] their faith," they don't get to dictate to, or lord it over others who are living Their lives the way They want.
Said pharmacists in my view are entirely welcome not to sell OTC drugs they don't like. Happily, their decision will not substantially affect consumers. It's win/win.
Oh and it's one less entirely unnecessary revenue stream for health insurance companies and doctor's offices.
So, Triple Word Score.
Kids can't even take an aspirin/acetaminophen/ibuprofen in school without approval.
Harrogate- the OTC part isn't new. The age of purchase is the new issue.
MayBee:
The OTC issue is pretty damned new. And it needs to be emphasized, in my opinion. A lot more things need to be OTC than there are. Needing to go through three rings of authority (insurer, doctor, pharmacist) to get something ought to be far less normal than it is.
If a few major drug chains decided not to sell morning after pills watch the left demand must carry laws.
The OTC issue is over a year old.
On the age-limit front, it's a terrible situation all the way around, but a lot of you seem to be saying that if a 15 year-old gets pregnant, then it is perfectly unproblematic for her to be told by her parents or by a pharmacist, some version of: "Shut up. You are going to carry the baby to term."
"The OTC issue is over a year old."
A year? A whole year??? Wow!
Christ on a crumb heap. Do you think of the Iraq invasion was ancient history. Have you got "OTC fatigue"??
Actually, plan B became OTC in 2006 for 18 and overs. The age was dropped to 17 in 2009.
So, sure, argue for more OTC drugs.
Just realize you are arguing for OTC with people who are discussing OTC for under 15s (or 18s).
You are not dictating how someone lives their life if you refuse to have items in your store that you don't want to sell. You don't have to have porno or cigarettes or even condoms if you don't want to sell them.
The difference is that people like harrogate and Obams want to enforce their morality or lack of same on other people. They want to force you to provide birth control and abortion services.
Because you see you don't have a choice.
"If a few major drug chains decided not to sell morning after pills watch the left demand must carry laws."
What's this? cubanbob forgetting that worship of the profit motive cuts more than one way, in practice?
Maybe the pills should be "conceal carry" under the counter so to speak. The buyer should be made to have to ask for the product, not be able to simply grab off a shelf. Then that gives the pharmacist an opportunity to give more detailed instructions to the buyer.
Baron, get off the drugs, speaking of drugs. You write:
"You are not dictating how someone lives their life if you refuse to have items in your store that you don't want to sell. You don't have to have porno or cigarettes or even condoms if you don't want to sell them."
That's exactly what I have been saying; you're being an idiot to think otherwise!
The only difference here is that with Prescription Drugs, fewer people get to sell them, much fewer. So your "views" are endowed with much more reach and power than what they ought to be endowed with. Would anyone notice if a local 7/11 stopped selling cigarettes? Even in the smallest rural town? Not likely.
But if a Scientologist phaamacist stops carrying antibiotics in a small town. Well, that would be something people would talk about. Wonder why that is?
What if a pharmacist only wants to sell plan B to over 18s? Could he?
If a pharmacist in a small town decided not to sell antibiotics that is his right. Another shop will open up across the street to sell them.
It is called the free market.
Something that you and Obama do not believe in do you?
MayBee, sure, as soon as we allow the 7/11 clerk across the street to sell it also.
Seriously, what percentage of 15 year olds know it's a serious crime to have sex with your girlfriend?
Well before that age we knew the concept of "jail bait."
Have there been a lot of problems in the last 7 years with pharmacists refusing to stock OTC plan B?
Harrogate- is it legal, I mean, for a pharmacist to carry a product and refuse to sell it to people who could legally purchase it.
There's no good reason for a pharmacist to be able to substantially dictate access to lots of things they currently dictate access to. Even if they don't abuse their power it doesn't mean they ought to have it. And that goes the same for insurers and doctors too.
Do a lot of 7-11 s currently carry Plan B?
Not yet they don't
Why not? It's BEEN OTC FOR 7 years. Not good business?
People are violating murder and rape laws every day too. Some of the folks here arguee as though those "unenforceable" laws should be done away with...
And since when should incest result in a death penalty for the child?
Harrogate- in this case, I believe many people think parents should be able to dictate the access, as they do in so many other aspects of their children's life.
Currently you can only buy it at pharmacies. OTC didn't mean 7/11 can sell it. But hopefully we will get there
There is a reason they tell you to consult your pharmacist when you are purchasing drugs. He has a record of the drugs you are currently taking and how they interact. Should he be able to stop you from buying something that he knows would be very dangerous for you to take with your current medications? Should he tell you to check with your doctor and let him know what else you are taking that you might have forgotten about?
Or should we listen to harrogate and remove discretion from someone who went to school for years to be a professional who can council his customers.
Great. More libertarian drug laws is a complex and interesting issue. Maybe we don't need to start with plan B for children, though. Maybe we can start with say, blood pressure meds.
harrogate said...
There's no good reason for a pharmacist to be able to substantially dictate access to lots of things they currently dictate access to. Even if they don't abuse their power it doesn't mean they ought to have it. And that goes the same for insurers and doctors too.
It could be that harrogate is just pissed that he has to buy his Viagra online.
"If a few major drug chains decided not to sell morning after pills watch the left demand must carry laws."
What's this? cubanbob forgetting that worship of the profit motive cuts more than one way, in practice?
You have a problem with business owners deciding what to stock their shelves with? Perhaps this isn't as profitable as you think it is. Little things like pissing off a lot of customers who don't believe in it and refuse to patronize stores that sell it or not wanting to be sued for complications. Unlike you business owners take a lot of things in to consideration when calculating what legal products they offer for sale.
So harrogate has no problems with Catholic hospitals getting the same public support as other hospitals even when they won't perform abortions or prescribe birth control? Yeah, I didn't think so either.
People, quit wasting time with the harrogate's of the world. Like everything else Left, he'll advocate whatever allows him the most freedom with the least responsibility, and the only argument he'll respect comes in calibers. There's a reason he doesn't protest in front of mosques, after all.
To me if a girl under the age of 18 is engaging in sex then the parents failed and whatever happens, happens. I have no sympathy for that family.
We should just turn all pharmacies into government run establishments. Heck, lets provide dildos and other kinky equipment since who are we to judge?
SDN - did you just issue a death threat against harrogate? You might want to rethink that post really quick before someone calls the cops.
What's this? cubanbob forgetting that worship of the profit motive cuts more than one way, in practice?
Gee Harrowgate maybe you should preach that to Hollywood and the MSM. WAPO's earnings are down 85%. maybe they could expand their readership by not pissing off so may potential subscribers. And Hollywood? Is their a more greedy and rapacious industry in the land yet they seem to go out of their way to piss off millions of potential customers. So you are advocating whatever you agree with must be offered but everyone else doesn't have that freedom.
"Common sense also tells us that the 17 yr-old has a right to choose her sex partner, whether he be 19 or 45.
5/4/13, 9:06 AM "
Please tell me you are not a parent.
A 17-year-old is a high-school student, not a mentally or emotionally mature adult. The science of brain development has made this very clear (as if living with a teenager didn't already). Sexual maturity does not trump common sense or make up for the lack of emotional and mental maturity. Most 17-yr-olds are still at home for a reason. They need guidance and support because they lack the maturity and experience to live on their own and make sound decisions, like shunning the 45-yr-old perv who can't find someone his own age.
Speaking as someone who has worked in women's health for almost two decades, these young ladies are a vulnerable group that have been done no service by the women's lib movement's emphasis on sexual freedom and abortion as the epitome of empowerment for women. Empowerment is helping them find a solid direction in life that is not focused finding a FWB and medicating or aborting the inevitable result. I can think of no reason for a 13 or 14 yr-old girl to have sex other than bad parenting or pursuit by a perv.
Audrey said...Please tell me you are not a parent.
My reading of that author over time is that he/she is still a teenager in many respects...seeking only the ecstasy of the next furtive spurt without consequences.
You would think that the manufacturer wouldn't want minor to purchase the product due liability issues. There are side affects. What if something horrible goes wrong? Will the FDA defend the drug company?
oops "side effects"
In his ruling, Judge Korman was most concerned about politically based interference by the White House in what should, in his mind, have been a non-political decision.
And he seems irritated that he could not trace that interference directly to the President:
"In the present circumstances, the political interference came directly from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a member of the President’s Cabinet. Of course, the Secretary herself is the best source of information on her state of mind, and she has not seen fit to file an affidavit in this case, even though her motives are in issue."
Obama has denied involvement. The appeal puts him at risk of being caught in another lie.
But aside from that, my favorite line in the ruling was this:
"The excuse offered by the minyan of attorneys representing her is that the Secretary was..."
I had to look it up. I guess "cabal of Kikes", "flock of Shylocks" or "herd of Hymies" would have been too obvious.
But Korman is Jewish, so it's OK.
I think harrogate just wants to fix it so those young girls he hangs around with can get birth control without their parents finding out about it.
Why not just take another look at NAMBLA. They wanted to treat young kids like adults. Maybe they were on to something.
If a 12 year old can buy a morning after pill without even parental permission, why are we jailing people as pedophiles who want to have sex with that 12 year old?
People here are talking about 14 and 15 year olds having sex with each other. As someone who is probably much younger than most of you, let me tell you. The girls in Jr high that were having sex were usually not having sex with someone also in Jr high. More likely over 20 and a deadbeat loser. Some boys were sexually active, but most just talked a good game. The boys most likely to be sexually active were usually gay and their boyfriends were usually over 40.
Think that one over.
Harrogate,
I want to better understand your position. Do you believe Plan B should be OTC but age limited to 18 or older - or - OTC but open to younger ages as well?
My primary concern is that the decisions to make it OTC and available to minors is that they were political decisions and not necessarily medically sound decisions.
I recently read an essay be a doctor who tells us how doctors are trained to become desensitized to dead bodies, gross skin rashes, and overpowering smells in order that they could work with patients. It seems that the media and the rest of the Liberal culture is working very hard to do the same thing by constantly bringing to us things that are morally repugnant, sickening and depraved. This has the effect of desensitizing us so that nothing can shock us because then we will accept evil. So that we can talk about 12, 13 or 14 year old girls taking a pill to flush away the residue of sex. So that we talk about the pharmacology instead of the human toll. We become hard, like Kermit Gosnell who collected the feet of the babies he killed in a jar. Keeping track? Or, like the plains Indians, collecting feet instead of scalps?
A culture that sets up a system that fed the business that Kermit Gosnell was in is far down the path of psychological callousness. We can even say that this is defensible; after all we have to deal with sick people and treat their rashes and bad smells. We have to deal with women and girls who get pregnant but don’t want to be a mother. The problem comes in when we begin to regard the way we deal with them as desirable, when what Kermit Gosnell was doing, or what the little pill that the little girl is taking after having sex is good. After all, wasn’t Gosnell doing what he was asked to do? No one was forced to go to his clinic. And if little girls are capable of having sex, let’s convince ourselves that they were just playing house with playmates their age – yeah, that right, kids their age - and something just slipped. Now we have a pill for that in our brave new world. Zip me up doc, I’m ready.
Couple of things: 1. the product will be OTC but I'm betting that you'll still have to ask the pharmacist for it. The pregnancy tests in both our local Publix and Walmart were recently put in locked cabinets that you have to request the pharmacist to open up. I'm sure it's a shoplifting issue and if pregnancy tests are a hot item for theft you can bet Plan B will be too.
2. I've seen a few comments here that pregnancy carries a far greater risk of health complications than Plan B. Perhaps that's true for all pregnancies, but we're talking about a specific cohort 14-18 (or younger) and they carry the lowest level of risk.
Couple of things: 1. the product will be OTC but I'm betting that you'll still have to ask the pharmacist for it. The pregnancy tests in both our local Publix and Walmart were recently put in locked cabinets that you have to request the pharmacist to open up. I'm sure it's a shoplifting issue and if pregnancy tests are a hot item for theft you can bet Plan B will be too.
2. I've seen a few comments here that pregnancy carries a far greater risk of health complications than Plan B. Perhaps that's true for all pregnancies, but we're talking about a specific cohort 14-18 (or younger) and they carry the lowest level of risk.
Don't worry little girls. If you can't get it over the counter you can just go to harrogates house and he will give it to you for free.
Along with a glass of Boones Farm and a back rub.
Don't worry little girls. If you can't get it over the counter you can just go to harrogates house and he will give it to you for free.
Along with a glass of Boones Farm and a back rub.
Um...people having sex at young ages is very much a part Western civilization and tradition.
Yes, but within the context of a marriage.
And since when should incest result in a death penalty for the child?
Ever since the first incest-caused pregnancy ended in abortion?
I'd like to know when it was decided that a young woman can't give birth without ruining her life. It is possible for young people to survive terrible events and go on to live admirable lives.
"It is possible for young people to survive terrible events and go on to live admirable lives."
Sure, but it's still better when they don't have to "survive terrible events"
America 2013.
Where a 14 year old girl can't get a tylenol but she can get an abortiacient.
Where a 14 year old boy bullies a 14 year old girl he can be expelled from school but if he knocks her up all she does is get a pill.
The Progressive Brave New World.
! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed:
BLOCKQUOTE
<blockquote>
Should the penalty for the child's failure to report the crime be...pregnancy? I'd sure hope not.
--Kchiker
</blockquote>
A true mark of Obama and his worshippers
is ignorance of the meaning of "penalty".
Obamadroids, try this on for size:
Should the penalty for careless driving be... blunt force trauma?
Nature doesn't deal in penalties but consequences. Here's another clue: should a pregnancy result from sex (of any kind) it is still a pregnancy whether or not the sex was a crime, reported or not. And if there is a pregnancy, there is an innocent baby. Bottom line: Obamadroids embrace the Gosnell programme of Murder The Innocent.
! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed:
BLOCKQUOTE
<blockquote>
Should we order our laws to serve the most dysfunctional in society?
--Freeman Hunt
</blockquote>
That's the heart of the matter,
isn't it?
I don't even believe we should order our laws to serve those only a few rungs up on the ladder of dysfunctionality from "the most dysfunctional", such as feminists or unwed baby mommas. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
Sure, but it's still better when they don't have to "survive terrible events"
Seriously? I don't much like the alternative, myself.
Get ready for an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases. How many males will gladly replace the condoms in their wallets with a few morning-after pills? How many young girls understand the pill won't take care of the gonorrhea or chlamydia she may have picked up the night before?
Baron Zemo said... "Don't worry little girls. If you can't get it over the counter you can just go to harrogates house and he will give it to you for free.
Along with a glass of Boones Farm and a back rub."
Yep. What a creepster.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा