It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge orders FDA to let 17-year-olds use Plan B

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Judge orders FDA to let 17-year-olds use Plan B


www.msnbc.msn.com

In a thorough denunciation of the Bush administration, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman blasted the FDA’s handling of the issue, saying it had “repeatedly and unreasonably” delayed issuing a decision on the medication.

The morning-after pill is a source of tension for social conservatives who held great sway in the Bush administration and who believe the pill is tantamount to abortion.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Wow, more about the whole birth control issue. I am just torn on this... As a parent, and being female and all.
(It rules to be fixed.)

But seriously, I think it was outragious that Bush wanted to label birth control as 'abortion'. Just sheer stupidity on his part, I figure.

Though I really think that 17 year olds should be able to receive birth control, as a parent I would wish that it would be with parental consent...

Honestly, I HATE the idea of the government encouraging our kids to go about this kind of stuff on their own, without their families. Way to break apart the family unit, FURTHER.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I don't consider the morning-after pill to be abortion... I mean... I'm for the people to choose, to make an informed choice, but come on...

The FDA have no matter in dictating someone's decision.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Yea this was a bad decision. 18 is a legal adult 17 is not. The 17 year old could still get this drug by perscription. But that would involve going to a doctor and the parents probably finding out about it, what teen wants to go throught that embarressment?

By ruling.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
What is the reason to allow a 17 year old to access plan b if 17 why not 16,15,14,13 there all having sex so whats the difference; if we have 17 year old minors allowed to take it why not add the rest or we could have it just 18.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Should be legal. In my state you can have an abortion without parental consent so I don't see the problem with this. If you do then I hope you're willing to drive one of these girls to her abortion or pay out more tax dollars and lend yourself to her for the time it will take to raise a healthy , happy child.

Also I don't get why people always make this issue so personal, just because you are one way doesn't mean the rest of the world should bend to that will. Just because your family is loving doesn't mean everyone is, plenty of plan b or abortion situations stem from rape and/or incest.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
First and Foremost - Plan B is not an "abortion pill" it is a higher dosage of regular birth controls crammed into two pills composed of progestin. The pill doesn't "kill" an embryo or stop the division of cells, it tricks the body into believing it is pregnant (does it not?) which would then inhibit fertilization. Since progestin is a female hormone, primarily associated with pregnancy, it would make sense that a Pill composed of progestin would thus hinder the possibility of pregnancy, instead of "terminating" one.

The fact that a 16 year old girl can go and pick up a prescription for BCP without Adult consent, demonstrates that the Plan B action should also be available without consent. (In the sense, that about 10 regular birth control pills will have the same affect on the body as taking the Plan B pill's).
*In Canada I believe you can get BCP at 16 without your parents knowing

Isn't the legal age to consent to sex 16?

So why shouldn't Plan B be available at the legal age of consent???

Obviously if teens are "legally" able to say "yes" at 16, and they can acquire Birth Control Pills at 16 - then... why shouldn't they be able to get Plan B at 16? Plan B is not a chemical compound that induces an abortion - it's the same ingredients (minus the estrogen) found in regular birth control pills.


There are nearly two dozen brands of pills that can be used for emergency contraception in the United States today. Plan B, which contains just the hormone progestin, is the only product specifically approved and marketed here as an emergency contraceptive pill. You can also use a different dose of a number of brands of regular birth control pills. While these are not sold specifically as emergency contraceptive pills, they have been proven safe and effective for preventing pregnancy in the few days after sex. These daily birth control pills contain two hormones, progestin and estrogen.


Emergency Contraception

This website provides dosage information for regular birth control pills which can also double as an alternative to Plan B.


- Carrot

*Not saying that I agree with the ruling...just showing that if one rule is going to change, then all should change - as they are all inter-connected.



[edit on 3/24/2009 by CA_Orot]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
The AOC in Canada was quite recently changed to 16 from 14, but I believe this topic is centered on the US, and in many states in the US the age of consent is 18. In most states the only exception is within a marriage that takes place between an adult and teen with parental consent. Some states have an AOC of 17, but I'm not sure if it is as young as 16 in any state.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
All this does is enable underage prostitution.

In most US states, the legal age is 16. In Hawaii, it's 14. In Iowa and South Carolina, it's 14 with parental consent. The age of consent changes to 16 for an American who travels out of the country. That 16-year-old can then legally have sex with someone as young as 12 years old.

AFAIK, the legal age in Canada is 16.

Children under 18 should be prohibited from entering into legal contracts, but most, if not all, stores allow a kid to buy a pack of gum or a comic book.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by vcwxvwligen]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
The AOC in Canada was quite recently changed to 16 from 14, but I believe this topic is centered on the US, and in many states in the US the age of consent is 18. In most states the only exception is within a marriage that takes place between an adult and teen with parental consent. Some states have an AOC of 17, but I'm not sure if it is as young as 16 in any state.


Okay - well then on a state-by-state basis, whatever their legal consenting age is - that is the age when Plan B should be available. If the legal age of consent is 17 in some states, then Plan B should be available in that state, for girls at that age without a prescription. If the legal age of consent is 18, then Plan B should be available without a prescription at that age.

I believe that children should talk to their parents when it comes to sexual issues - although sometimes this simply isn't possible.

I'm not American, and I am not familiar with American Law, but it doesn't make sense for the consenting age, the birth control availability age, and the Plan B age - to be different.

Although, birth control is administered as early as the first period to combat acne and regulate hormones... but it STILL can provide the same affects as Plan B...


- Carrot



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

In most US states, the legal age is 16.

You are correct, many states are 18 or 17, but I wanted to double check and I think the majority are 16. Thanks for mentioning this because I completely forgot. So having plan b available at 17 is not a huge deal if most states have an AOC of 16.


All this does is enable underage prostitution.


Have any studies that would support such a bold claim?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   


The pill doesn't "kill" an embryo or stop the division of cells, it tricks the body into believing it is pregnant (does it not?) which would then inhibit fertilization.


From what I understand from listening to Loveline all those years, the morning-after pill works by preventing the egg from being released. RU-486 is the abortion pill and I don't think that is available in the states and it is completely different from Plan B. You have 72 hours to take the MA pill after the sexual encounter in question and it has a 75% chance of preventing pregnancy. If there is already an egg there and a sperm gets to it, you're going to get pregnant. If you are already pregnant and you take the MA pill, it does absolutely nothing.

It makes no sense that birth control pills are fine, but this isn't. As the poster I am quoting from mentioned in her post, you can also take two or four birth control pills (depending on the birth control pill you are taking) and get the same effect.

Young girls of all ages should have no trouble getting this pill if they need it. We have too many kids having kids that they aren't ready for and don't know how to raise. Kids are going to have sex, that's just how it is. We have no problem with birth control or even condoms, so when mistakes happen, Plan B is just that; Plan B and it should be readily available without a prescription.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Exactly, Thank you.

Plan B (if taken before the fertilization of the egg) stops the egg from being released. But if the egg has already been fertilized, it doesn't terminate the pregnancy.


- Carrot



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I don't believe any judge has the right to make this kind of decision. The law states that as a parent you are responsible to take care of your children until the age of 18. Now they want to say that a 17 year old can receive this without parental permission.

In a time when all you hear about is how parents aren't doing their jobs as parents they seem to be doing all they can to make it more difficult for us to actually parent our children. More and more often it's a case of raise your children the way we (the government) see fit.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by chise61
I don't believe any judge has the right to make this kind of decision. The law states that as a parent you are responsible to take care of your children until the age of 18. Now they want to say that a 17 year old can receive this without parental permission.

In a time when all you hear about is how parents aren't doing their jobs as parents they seem to be doing all they can to make it more difficult for us to actually parent our children. More and more often it's a case of raise your children the way we (the government) see fit.


This is exactly what I was thinking. This is really the kind of stuff that should be decided by LEGAL GUARDIANS of MINORS, when applicable, and their doctor. This was what I thought, too, when I read parts of the article.

And yeah, like others... I totally agree kids should have 100% access to birth control and stuff. But it is retarded to have a legal guardian accept full responsibility and liability for someone else.. when the someone else is encouraged to act independently from said guardian.

Sure, as a teen it probably woulda sucked to ask parents about BC. But to be honest, a parent comes to expect it anyway, and probably should be more responsible about making sure the kids are covered, where needed.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join