won't somebody please think of the children!

[Schildog]

Do you believe a 15 year old child should be able to access life changing drugs like that without any kind of guidance?  This would be a different discussion if a parent had to go with the child to get the pill.

 

Do you believe that kids are inherantly wise enough to use drugs responsibly?  This is my big concern.

 

taking one pill to prevent a possible pregnancy isn't as life changing as actually having a kid.

[mtangelsfan]

I agree, I just don't think they are exclusionary of one another.  Taking one pill isn't really my concern.  It's the idea (that big pharm loves by the way) that somehow drugs can make our problems go away.

 

This is especially dangerous when you add in the fact that we are talking about children.  They often don't make the best choices and they often don't think about the circumstances.

[TobiasFunke]

Do you guys know if one has to be a certain age to buy condoms?

[Mudville]

It makes the government less influential. The effect on the parent is non-existent. If the only reason a child didn't get the morning after pill was because the government said they couldn't then the parent wasn't very influential in that aspect to begin with. A parent can still parent without the government helping them.

I think you misunderstand the roles here and how one does effect the other.

 

Laws prohibiting the distribution of drugs that alter the bodies physiology that previously required a parent or guardian to sign off on, enforced the parents responsibility to take an active role in a child's decision making process when it regarded their health.

 

Removing these laws says the parent does not have to be informed when their child requests a medication that has potential side effects and removes their supervision rights to the child's health and well being.

 

So in affect the government has removed the adult supervision from the equation when it regards health and well being and gave the responsibility to children, bypassing their actual guardians. Health side affects are still the responsibility of the parent or guardian to attend to but now without knowledge as to cause their decisions are hampered by being denied that knowledge from a health care provider under these circumstances.

[Mudville]

taking one pill to prevent a possible pregnancy isn't as life changing as actually having a kid.

Ever read the warning labels on these drugs? They could be devastatingly life changing.

[mtangelsfan]

Do you guys know if one has to be a certain age to buy condoms?

 

Condoms are not pharmacuticals. 

[Schildog]

Ever read the warning labels on these drugs? They could be devastatingly life changing.

 

which do you think has the greater chance to really **** up a young life?

[Mudville]

And as a side note the only reason a bill like this would be shoved through completely ignoring the parent's rights to know what medication or treatments would be available to their children would be pharmaceutical profit. The trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry makes the defense industry look like paupers using play money.

 

Legalizing any drug, even if it is a simple aspirin substitute, means billion of dollars to their coffers as it becomes a Rite Aid shelf product. Bypassing parent consent on birth control means money you could never imagine having access to.

 

This is not about government trying to solve a problem.

[Mudville]

which do you think has the greater chance to really **** up a young life?

Any life altering decision made by a 13-17 year old without getting the right advice and counseling. That should start in the home instead of a free clinic.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Any life altering decision made by a 13-17 year old without getting the right advice and counseling. That should start in the home instead of a free clinic.

 

Except unless I'm mistaken the use of this pill has to happen in a small window to be effective.  This is the type of thing that some kids would be afraid to approach their parents about in that time frame or even during the period when they can get an abortion.  In a perfect world talks about birth control and various options regarding pregnancy would happen before someone is sexually active but we all know that isn't the case.  That's why I don't disagree with this being available to people who are sexually active and capable of having a child.   

 

One interesting thing to me about all of this is that like everything else 18 is the age where someone is able to decide for themselves or where society doesn't have a problem calling them an adult.  Yet in this case most people are able to reproduce 3+ years before then.  I get 18 being the age where someone is an adult yet plenty of 18 year olds aren't even in position to raise a kid or make an informed decision about carrying a child to term.   

[TobiasFunke]

Condoms are not pharmacuticals. 

Why comment if you aren't going to answer my question? This has nothing to do with condoms vs. morning after pill, I wanted to know if there was an age limit to buy condoms. I'd check but I'm at work.

[mtangelsfan]

I don't know. 

[arch stanton]

I'm sure this is much more about profits for the corporations that own and operate the US government than it is about concern for people but I don't think it's a bad thing. In pretty much any case I would favor access over restriction so the ones who will use something as it is intended have access as opposed to trying to save abusers from themselves.

[HaloMagic]

Yeah, I don't see how someone can believe that it's a parent's right to have their government stop their kids from doing things they don't want them to do. Government shouldn't be in the business of parenting.

[mtangelsfan]

No, but they shouldn't be in the business of taking that opportunity away from parents either.

 

You really didn't answer my questions about children taking drugs either HM.

[Lifetime]

Do you guys know if one has to be a certain age to buy condoms?

No age limit 

[Lifetime]

Yeah, I don't see how someone can believe that it's a parent's right to have their government stop their kids from doing things they don't want them to do. Government shouldn't be in the business of parenting.

Putting age restrictions on purchasing without parental consent on pharmaceuticals is not the government parenting nor is it the government stopping kids from doing things they don't want them to do. This was a restriction on what pharmacies etc. can legally distribute to children. What this has done is allow minor children unfettered access to drugs with potential negative side effects without any parental control or involvement. And on top of that, there is no medical or pharmacist counseling required regarding the potential side effects, and proper usage of the drug other than the usual packaging or insert, which adults rarely read much less children. It is a parent's right and responsibility to decide what medical procedures and pharmaceuticals are given to their minor children. This is absolutely taking away that parental right. Abortions for minors without consent (or even notification in some jurisdictions) is another way parental rights have been stripped in some states but at least that requires medical advice and medical professional procedure. 

[arch stanton]

First of all. I really dislike the idea that every minute detail of our lives has to be decided at the federal level. 

 

You can't protect everyone from themselves and I'm not sure why we want to. Placing an arbitrary age limit on something like this only makes it ever so slightly harder for teens to obtain them if they want them,.Pretty much anything you can buy in a pharmacy, or a grocery store for that matter, can be harmful and you hope parents will explain the dangers and emphasize why it's called emergency contraception. 

[Lifetime]

Well arch, this isn't a minute detail that was being decided at the federal level. This was about not having minor children make medical or pharmaceutical decisions without a parent (who has the legal right to make medical and drug decisions on behalf of their minor children by the way - as they should) and also about having medical advice and counseling regarding taking such a pharmaceutical. Having them be of legal age before they can buy something like this without either medical guidance or parental consent/guidance is not some arbitrary age restriction. Once this is made an over the counter drug, available unfettered to any age, it completely removes both parental rights and medical advice.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

To me the issue is minor or not I don't think a 15-17 year old should be forced to carry a baby to term because their parents don't consent to them getting this pill or an abortion.  This thread made me think of a related question - a few weeks ago I read an article about a family who lost a second child when modern medicine may have saved the childs life.  For religious reasons the parents do not use modern medicine and they leave it "in gods hands."  At what point if any should parental consent not be required for a minor?  Is it only in a life saving situation and if so how do you justify or legally take parental rights away then?     

[Lifetime]

 To me the issue is minor or not I don't think a 15-17 year old should be forced to carry a baby to term because their parents don't consent to them getting this pill or an abortion.  This thread made me think of a related question - a few weeks ago I read an article about a family who lost a second child when modern medicine may have saved the childs life.  For religious reasons the parents do not use modern medicine and they leave it "in gods hands."  At what point if any should parental consent not be required for a minor?  Is it only in a life saving situation and if so how do you justify or legally take parental rights away then?     

So you disagree with a parent's legal right to make medical decisions for their minor children? 

 

And court cases decide those kind of issues all the time. And again, there is at the very least medical professional advice for the procedures. How do you decide? When the court with medical advice and parental argument deems it is in the best interest of the child. Like any other parental right removal. 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I disagree with a parent being able to tell a pregant child of theirs or one that may become pregnant that they can't consider certain options because they require parental consent.  It's their body and something they will have to live through whatever choice they make.  In the case of this pill there's a very small window and counseling, discussions, etc really isn't feasible.  I agree with arch that for something like pregnancy which can occur long before 18 requiring parental consent seems arbitrary.  You're old enough to get pregnant but you may have no say in what happens even in an oops situation?  Makes no sense to me.   

 

As to the story I read the courts didn't decide anything.  That family has now let two children die without receiving medical help that may have saved their lives.  I guess it's the parents right to decide that to some.   

[Lifetime]

I disagree with a parent being able to tell a pregant child of theirs or one that may become pregnant that they can't consider certain options because they require parental consent. It's their body and something they will have to live through whatever choice they make. In the case of this pill there's a very small window and counseling, discussions, etc really isn't feasible. I agree with arch that for something like pregnancy which can occur long before 18 requiring parental consent seems arbitrary. You're old enough to get pregnant but you may have no say in what happens even in an oops situation? Makes no sense to me.

As to the story I read the courts didn't decide anything. That family has now let two children die without receiving medical help that may have saved their lives. I guess it's the parents right to decide that to some.

Well again cat, these are medical decisions on a minor. A parent has the legal right and obligation/responsibility to make decisions for the medical care of their minor children. All medical procedures or treatments involve "their bodies" so I don't get that argument. Medical decisions should not be made by a minor and definitely not without medical professional advice or counsel. Also, this isn't about removing the option or having a say for the minor child. The option still exists.

As for the small window of opportunity, I'm sorry, but 72 hours is plenty of time to get parental consent or medical counseling on taking a pharmaceutical.

And yes, courts won't always side with the medical argument over the parents', but there is a process for this like any other legal matter.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Which completely disregards the fact that 18 is an arbitrary age when it comes to some decisions.  Nothing magical happens when you turn 18 except you will be tried as an adult, can join the military yet you still can't drink a beer.  Barring some kind of medical condition the "average" person can create a child before then yet they can't make decisions about what is done after that moment.  No one is advocating that small children should be making their own medical decisions but people who are sexually active aren't suddenly wiser because they're a year older or rather a day older when they turn 18.         

 

As to 72 hours that was addressed before - many kids are going to be afraid to tell their parents so no that's not always enough time to take those steps.  In a perfect world sure but not in the real world and that's why you hear stories of girls hiding their pregancy from their parents until they go into labor. 

[Schildog]

the conservative argument of not wanting young women not having access to it from this thread is laughable.