Obama Administration Reflexively Lies About Plan B Emergency Contraception

Plan BCredit: PrincetonIn April, a federal court ordered the Obama administration to make Plan B emergency contraception available without a prescriptionn to all females of reproductive age. Yesterday, the FDA ruled that women over the age 15 could have over-the-counter access to the pill. Also, yesterday the FDA filed an appeal of the district court's ruling. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Justice Department had the bald-faced temerity to argue:

“The Court’s Order interferes with and thereby undermines the regulatory procedures governing FDA’s drug approval process,” the Justice Department said. “A drug approval decision involves scientific judgments as to whether statutory and regulatory factors are met that warrant deference to those charged with the statutory responsibility to make those decisions.”

So just what exactly was the FDA's actual scientific judgment about Plan B. Jumping into our policy WABAC Machine and we find the following December 7, 2011 statement from FDA Administrator Margaret Hamburg:

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step.  Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

It is our responsibility at FDA to approve drugs that are safe and effective for their intended use based on the scientific evidence.  The review process used by CDER to analyze the data applied a risk/benefit assessment consistent with its standard drug review process.  Our decision-making reflects a body of scientific findings, input from external scientific advisory committees, and data contained in the application that included studies designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs.  CDER experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.

I reviewed and thoughtfully considered the data, clinical information, and analysis provided by CDER, and I agree with the Center that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.

What's especially ridiculous is that the folks in the Obama administration overruled the scientific determinations of the FDA and arbitrarily imposed age restrictions on the availability of Plan B out obvious electoral considerations. Since the president can't run for office again, the only plausible reason that the Justice Department would oppose making Plan B available without a prescription to all women of reproductive age now is out of sheer embarassment at the fact the administration would be admitting its original decision was completely political.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • WTF||

    "Obama Administration Reflexively Lies..."

    Really, you could have stopped right there.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    What's especially ridiculous is that the folks in the Obama administration overruled the scientific determinations of the FDA and arbitrarily imposed age restrictions on the availability of Plan B out obvious electoral considerations.

    Why does Obama want to punish us all with babies?

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's the only way you'll learn.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Teen moms tend to be more reliant on others for support, frequently that other includes the government. Being heavily reliant on others breeds more free stuff voters which are his base.

  • DJF||

    """"CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases"''

    Have the actually met any adolescent females, or for that matter any adolescents at all? The people who wrote this study were probably nerds at best during the adolescent years and had no chance of gettig pregnant or even kissing.

  • Zeb||

    I'm pretty sure that the study involved talking to some adolescent females, not just the researchers imagining what they would have done as adolescents.

  • Brandon||

    I'm pretty sure the study never actually happened, and the funding was used as a door prize at an Obama fundraiser.

  • wareagle||

    maybe it's just me, but there seems a disconnect in a society where 15 year olds can walk up and get plan-B, but grownups needs to show ID and be put into a database over sinus medication.

  • ||

    That disconnect is called, "Hey, FDA, fuck off, slavers."

  • Ron Bailey||

    w: The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (an addition to the USA PATRIOT Act) was imposed on the FDA by Congress and the Bush administration.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Ah, yes, the initial meth panic.

  • Jon Lester||

    Lot of good that's actually done. Here in rural parts, it's easy to forget they even tried.

  • JeremyR||

    If you want to buy meth, sure.

    But if you want to buy allergy/cold medicine it's almost impossible

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    How about a society in which kids in school aren't mature enough to take an aspirin or Tylenol on their own say-so but can buy Plan B on the way home?

  • SugarFree||

    Is it better for a 15-year-old to have a child?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    It's probably better for the parents, who are responsible in one way or another for just about every aspect of her life already, to be involved, rather than the 15 year old make the decision wholly on her own.

  • SugarFree||

    So they can make her have a child. It's cool. They get a grandchild and she gets her life ruined. Or maybe she can get on Teem Mom 3! That leads to lucrative anal sex movie deals I hear.

    Or maybe it's her dad that knocked her up. Or her mom's live-in boyfriend. Or maybe it just Johnny down the street and her dad probably won't beat her that badly or will just kick her out. I'm sure after she shits out the kid in some gutter, her prospects will be blue skies from then on...

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "It's probably better for the parents... to be involved..."

    When the wishes of a minor and her parents diverge, especially on something major, I don't think there are any easy answers.

    I suppose one approach would be emancipation.

    I like that you you think kicking her out would be bad. If she chose not to use Plan B would her parents be on the hook for her, and the kids, expenses, in your view?

  • SugarFree||

    No, I don't think so. If you leave the avenues open for contraception and abortion, then any girl that consented to sex with a willing partner is on the hook if she decided to proceed with a pregnancy. (I also think that kicks in with any woman that remains pregnant against a partner's objection.) I think willingly having a child should be considered automatic legal emancipation.

    I like that you you think kicking her out would be bad.

    I consider it bad in the sense that she had to inform her parents to get Plan B, they turned her down and kicked her out for being a pregnant slut. If they turned her down but agreed to help her raise the child then it's a matter of what sort of contractual obligations they engage in. If they let her have Plan B, and still kicked her out, I still consider that a pretty sub-optimal outcome that could have been avoided if she didn't have to inform that to get Plan B.

    Parents that a 15-year-old who needs EC can come to with her problem aren't the issue. It's all the shitty parents that means it should be OTC and available.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I think willingly having a child should be considered automatic legal emancipation.

    Automatic or grounds for automatic, if requested?

    It's all the shitty parents that means it should be OTC and available.

    I don't think that structuring decisions around shitty parents is the way to go.

  • ||

    I don't think that structuring decisions around shitty parents is the way to go.

    Why? If we're looking to protect the vulnerable, isn't that what makes sense?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm not looking to protect the vulnerable, I'm looking to let those whom we deem responsible for them be left to do that. Or, hell, at least have some input on that.

    If a parent is so shitty that we can't trust her to make coherent decisions for her child, why stop at Plan B and not just move straight toward terminating the parental rights, period.

  • ||

    If a parent is so shitty that we can't trust her to make coherent decisions for her child, why stop at Plan B and not just move straight toward terminating the parental rights, period.

    Thumbs up to this.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So, are religious people making shitty decisions for their children? Homeschoolers? Preppers? Libertarians? People who don't teach saving and budgeting? People who don't go in for book learnin'? People who don't go in for blood transfusions? Vaccinations? Bike helmets? People who let them have 17 ounce soft drinks and salt?

    Where do you draw the line between what you think is shitting parenting and what Bloomberg thinks is shitty parenting?

  • ||

    Everyone has to draw their own lines and take moral responsibility for them. I realize to some extent that's not an "answer," but that's anarchism for you.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    There are no shitty parents, just parents with a different moral perspectives.

  • SugarFree||

    So it's not that a father ever rapes or beats his daughter, he just has a different moral perspective, so that's OK.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That's consistent with "Everyone has to draw their own lines and take moral responsibility for them," isn't it?

  • ||

    And the daughter can take full moral responsibility for killing him as soon as she is able.

  • SugarFree||

    So a daughter-rapist isn't a shitty parent?

  • ||

    That's consistent with "Everyone has to draw their own lines and take moral responsibility for them," isn't it?

    No. Morality is based upon how you respect the rights of others.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That's a begging the question gold medal, right there.

  • ||

    How so?

    Morality isn't relative, as you suggest. It is quite simple actually.

    You can do as you choose provided you don't infringe upon the rights of others.

    You might argue that the 15yo doesn't have the right to decide on their own. That is a legitimate position. You cannot, however, claim morality is flexible.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm not the one who wrote, "Everyone has to draw their own lines and take moral responsibility for them."

  • ||

    Sorry, can't tell who is responding to whom and with all the sarcasm it's hard to follow.

    My post is for the person arguing in favor of moral relativity.

  • ||

    To be clear, I'm not saying everyone will draw the right lines. If a father rapes his daughter, taking moral responsibility for that means taking moral responsibility for doing something incredibly immoral, and he has it coming to him when she, or her mother, or someone close to them decides to kill him for it. A daughter-rapist is a shitty parent, a shitty person, immoral, etc.

  • $park¥||

    You cannot, however, claim morality is flexible.

    That's just plain silly. Your morality is not the morality. Some people believe that morality doesn't exist.

  • ||

    Of course, my morality is THE morality.

    A is A.

    The things you do that do not impact the rights of others are of no concern of mine, or anyone else. PERIOD. You can fuck goat on the pulpit of a church for all I care.

    The only time something is immoral is when it violates someone else's rights.

    Rationally the definition can be nothing else. You cannot claim to be a free person and believe something else.

  • $park¥||

    Of course, my morality is THE morality.

    Sorry, but you're wrong. And as long as you continue to believe that you will always be wrong. You are not infallible. Sorry, but you just aren't. I will allow you the caveat that your morality is THE morality for YOU.

    Do you believe that it is wrong to kill someone? In self-defense or the defense of another?

  • ||

    Sorry, but you're wrong. And as long as you continue to believe that you will always be wrong. You are not infallible. Sorry, but you just aren't. I will allow you the caveat that your morality is THE morality for YOU.

    Incorrect.

    Do you believe that it is wrong to kill someone? In self-defense or the defense of another?

    It is wrong to kill someone who hasn't aggressed on another. It is not wrong to kill someone in self defense or the defense of another.

  • $park¥||

    It is wrong to kill someone who hasn't aggressed on another. It is not wrong to kill someone in self defense or the defense of another.

    Do you deny that there are millions of people who believe that it is wrong to kill another human being for any reason ever? To you, they are immoral. To them, you are immoral. Why does your morality trump theirs?

  • ||

    Simply, because my way is the only way that's consistent. What premise is their morality based upon?Certainly not liberty, or property rights. What, premise leads them to believe it moral to allow an aggressor to kill their child?

    You will note my last line in the post above.

    You cannot claim to be a free person and believe something else.

    I stand by that. Their "morality" may be based upon their religion. Which, is in fact just a bunch of ideas pulled from someone's ass and DICTATED to its believers. If you are being dictated to, you are not a free person.

  • $park¥||

    What premise is their morality based upon?Certainly not liberty, or property rights. What, premise leads them to believe it moral to allow an aggressor to kill their child?

    It is possible to defend oneself or another without killing the attacker. No killing doesn't mean no defense. I would say that their morality provides more liberty because it doesn't take away the life of the aggressor.

    Which, is in fact just a bunch of ideas pulled from someone's ass and DICTATED to its believers. If you are being dictated to, you are not a free person.

    They could say the same about you. For all I know, your morality was pulled directly from your own ass. And now you are dictating that everyone else follow it.

  • ||

    It is possible to defend oneself or another without killing the attacker. No killing doesn't mean no defense. I would say that their morality provides more liberty because it doesn't take away the life of the aggressor.

    There is no point there. I NEVER said I should be able to kill someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum. Laws decide the appropriate use of force against an aggressor. You asked me if it was alright to kill in self defense. That means if I don't kill him, he will likely kill me. That's a matter of appropriate force and doesn't violate anything I've said.

    And now you are dictating that everyone else follow it.

    I don't dictate shit. You can live as you choose. If you want to worship your skydaddy and hate teh gayz, have a nut.

    All I require is that you do not FORCE your beliefs on me. To do so is immoral.

  • $park¥||

    I NEVER said I should be able to kill someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum.

    I never said you did. What you DID say is that there ARE circumstances where you feel it would not be immoral to kill another person. That's all.

    That means if I don't kill him, he will likely kill me. That's a matter of appropriate force and doesn't violate anything I've said.

    If you feel you're incapable of disabling someone without killing them, that doesn't make the killing moral.

    All I require is that you do not FORCE your beliefs on me. To do so is immoral.

    Perfect. In essence, you are saying you don't really care about what morality others follow as long as they don't force it on you and you will return the favor. Whether or not you acknowledge their moral rules, they don't affect you and so are irrelevant. That's not to say they don't exist. You go your way with your morality and I go my way with mine. Which goes back to what I said originally, your morality is THE morality for YOU.

    PS - I am not a follower/believer in any religion whatsoever. That being said, not every religion is based on a skydaddy that hates gays.

  • ||

    Sparky, it's all about force. Morality is about force. HENCE, the premise:

    You can do as you wish, PROVIDED, in doing so you do not infringe on the rights of others.

    I don't care what you believe, I don't care what you think, I don't care if you want to follow the teachings of Christ or Mohammed or Colonel Sanders. None of that is immoral UNTIL you attempt to FORCE me to your way of doing things.

    You can believe me immoral for watching porn. FINE. What you can't do is forcibly stop me, as I have infringed upon no one's rights.

    It is the ONLY place you can draw the line and call yourself free. It is THE FUNDAMENTAL truth.

  • $park¥||

    Morality is about force.

    Morality is a collection of rules defining right and wrong and has nothing to do with force. That being said, I agree that there are people who would force you to follow their morality.

    I don't care what you believe, I don't care what you think, I don't care if you want to follow the teachings of Christ or Mohammed or Colonel Sanders.

    Great, and I don't care what you believe. But that's morality.

    You can believe me immoral for watching porn. FINE. What you can't do is forcibly stop me, as I have infringed upon no one's rights.

    And I personally would never try to stop you. But if you're ever in India, I suggest you don't order a steak.

  • ||

    Great, and I don't care what you believe. But that's morality.

    NO, it is not morality. Morality is based upon actions, not beliefs.

    Beliefs are not immoral. Unjustified actions are immoral. Unjustified actions are those that infringe upon the rights of others.

  • $park¥||

    NO, it is not morality. Morality is based upon actions, not beliefs.

    I guess you could pick that nit. I hope you didn't ignore the rest though.

  • ||

    Breakthrough!

    Not a nit. The entire argument. That's what I mean by Morality being about FORCE. And forcibly infringing on the rights of others. Force implies action. You can be against my beliefs. You cannot forcibly take action against me for them unless I've violated someone else's.

  • $park¥||

    Breakthrough!

    Huh?

    That's what I mean by Morality being about FORCE. And forcibly infringing on the rights of others.

    Did you click on the link to the definition of morality that I provided? I didn't see the word force there one time.

    Force implies action.

    OK.

    You can be against my beliefs.

    OK.

    You cannot forcibly take action against me for them unless I've violated someone else's.

    I'm failing to see where you're going with this. Other than the possibility that you and I have different ideas of what the word morality means.

  • Taggart||

    "You can do as you choose provided you don't infringe upon the rights of others."

    CAN ain't SHOULD though.

  • ||

    Got a question for y'all. Do you think a 15 yo can get a six pack if she wants one? Can she get ahold of the sweet stinky weed?

    Ya think she'll be able to lay her hands on an over the counter medication?

    1. Making it illegal won't do shit.
    2. The parent isn't going to be involved in that decision regardless.

    Reality. How does it work?

  • Rasilio||

    "They get a grandchild and she gets her life ruined."

    You know I keep seeing people saying how Teen Moms "have their lives ruined" and I don't buy it.

    Sure having a kid too young is tough and blocks off a whole bunch of stuff your peers will be doing but you know what, so does waiting to have a kid.

    My oldest friend (the only person I went to high school with and am still friends with) got pregnant at 15, became a mom at 16 at which point she dropped out of school and got married (her husband was my best friend at the time). 3 years later they're divorced because of his immaturity and she is a single 19 year old mom with 2 kids and no high school diploma.

    Here we sit 23 years later, she has an associates degree and career in IT making close to $100,000 a year and her kids are grown and living on their own.

    Contrast that to me, I did not have children till I was 24, I work in the same field as her and make a little more money but have no college degree but my kids are all still kids and the youngest will not graduate High School till I am 56.

    In no way shape or form has having 2 kids prior to her 20th birthday "ruined" her life and by quite a few objective measures she has it better than me.

    I should also note that she did not get where she is by being particularly driven, she sat on her ass feeling sorry for herself collecting welfare for a good 5 - 6 years till the welfare reform of the 90's forced her to do something.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    In no way shape or form has having 2 kids prior to her 20th birthday "ruined" her life and by quite a few objective measures she has it better than me.

    And some short guys have played in the NBA. That doesn't mean that lack of height can't be a problem for the majority.

    My mother is another anecdote like your friend -- 3 kids by 21 or so -- but that doesn't mean that's the way I'd bet.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Most humans breed as soon as they are able. The minority in the West has been pushing breeding back in its' lifespan. This has resulted in low birthrates, higher incidence of defective births, and progressive infantilisation of adults.

    Getting your breeding out of the way when young ensures, for the modern human, a good many years left when children are gone to pursue one's own interests

  • Robert||

    But there's no exemption in what FDA wants based on parental permission; it's an absolute age bar based on age for nonprescription dispensing. The only effective permission could be given by a health care pro.

  • Zeb||

    I think that, at least as far as things related to potential pregnancy goes, sexually mature teens should be allowed to decide this on their own. I think parents should have a lot of leeway in how they choose to raise their kids, but not to the extent that they can make decisions for them that can potentially saddle them with a child for the next 18+ years.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I think that, at least as far as things related to potential pregnancy goes, sexually mature teens should be allowed to decide this on their own.

    And if the teen decides to keep the kid, what obligations do the parents, whom you exclude from the decision-making process, have for the kid and grandkid?

  • Zeb||

    So, you think that parents should be able to force their children to take plan B or have an abortion?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I can think of some situations in which I think that wouldn't be unreasonable.

    That said, making it so a minor can't buy Plan B or get an abortion without parental input isn't the same as saying that parents can, in all cases, force abortions.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    You can make the age 18, but it doesn't mean that a 15 year old has to get parental permission to take it. All you need is an older sibling, or a cousin, or friend.

  • Zeb||

    Kids in school ought to be able to take aspirin or Tylenol on their own in school.

  • Brandon||

    This was the right answer to begin with.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yes. But why, other than FYTW, aren't they?

  • Brandon||

    I blame Tony.

  • Ruckus||

    A-fucking-men.

    I have sinus/allergy issues, and it's such a god damn hassle to get simple medication for me to function when they get real bad.

    Never mind the issue of when I do get a sinus/ear infection that I'm unable to fight off. I have to go spend 1-2 hours in a waiting room, with a bunch of contagious people, just to have a doc look at me for 5 minutes, and pay him $50 bucks just to write me a special piece of paper to allow me to get antibiotics.

  • some guy||

    That "special piece of paper" is all that stands between our society and destruction at the flagella of countless antibiotic-resistant bacteria! True story.

  • Ruckus||

    I forgot. People would line up around the block to buy the stuff they don't need and consume it by the handfuls.

  • Zeb||

    You're right. It is totally stupid that people have to show ID to get Sudafed.

  • SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)||

    ^This.

  • radar||

    The party of science!

  • John||

    I can't figure this one out. Abortion is the holy grail for Democrats. If it wasn't for the pesky DA, they would probably be running Kermit Gosnell for public office. I am shocked this stuff wasn't made over the counter and free two days after Obama took office.

    Is it really the case that they hate approving new drugs more than they love abortion? Jesus, if this drug can't get approved over the counter, it is amazing that anything is ever approved.

  • ||

    I am shocked this stuff wasn't made over the counter and free two days after Obama took office.

    What I'm honestly more shocked about...though I shouldn't be...is that there wasn't a hue and cry over this on the feminist-y side. Prior to the Obama admin, getting Plan B made available without prescription was a Big Deal for many people like that.

  • John||

    Sure it was a big deal right up until not getting it became the price of having a Dem in the White House and getting goodies. The feminist y side would agree to making it illegal for women to appear in public without wearing a burka if it was the price to pay for enough prog policies. They don't even care about the "women's' issue they claim to care about. They care about power and furthering the cause.

  • AuH20||

    You see, Nikki, under Bush, they could blame it on evangelical Christians, and Evangelicals v. Feminists is an old culture war that they know well.

    Under Obama, who are they going to fight and make fun of and otherwise signal how superior they are to? Socially conservative black voters which doesn't even really make that much sense as a reason behind this?

    The only logical explination is that Obama is a petty tryant who can't admit he is wrong, and that would fly in the face of so many of the other qualities they have imbued him (and by extent themselves) with: cool, rational, intelligent, etc.

    Remember: Obama makes liberals feel good because of the way he talks, and Bush made them filled with rage because he had a Southern accent, talked about Jesus, and didn't sound sad about global warming.

  • ||

    Right, exactly. But how fucking pathetic is that?

  • AuH20||

    Well if you scroll down, I did find an article from Jez recently where they do get frustrated.

    I mean, not enough to do that much, other than maybe write an angry letter or email or start a petition on whitehouse.gov

    Then again, what else can they do? Protest in front of the White House? AGAINST SUCH A GREAT PRESIDENT?!

    Any woman who suggested that would clearly have Hysteria.

  • Robert||

    It was Biden who imbued him with the Boy Scout-y qualities. "Clean" was a sticking point, though.

  • some guy||

    It's all about control, John. They're not saying you can't take Plan B. They're just saying you have to jump through some hoops before they'll let you take Plan B.

  • Robert||

    In other words, they like chickenshit? It's that important to them to have a certain class of potential consumers who need to jump thru meaningless hoops? Meaningless in the sense of not having medical significance.

  • OldMexican||

    CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood [???] the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases.


    And adolescent women never lie, so...

    Either that or the investigators at the CDER are the only humans in this universe who can read minds with a reasonable level of accuracy.

  • John||

    No 15 year old would use it every day on the theory that it is better safe than sorry and no teenager would ever believe an urban myth that it keeps you from getting an STD. That is just impossible Old Mexican. Teenagers never believe foolish things or act foolishly. Never.

  • some guy||

    But ultimately, who cares if some teenagers believe foolish things. That's not an excuse for limiting the rights of all teenagers.

  • John||

    Teenagers are not adults. Their parents still have a right to limit their rights however they want to. You make this shit over the counter to teenagers, their parents really can't do that can they?

    This about rights all right. But not teenagers' rights, parental rights. You don't like that, then lower the age of majority below 18. Until, the teenagers don't have right to do shit unless their parents let them.

  • Zeb||

    "teenagers don't have right to do shit unless their parents let them."

    Sure they do. Their parents could keep them locked in the house if they wanted to, but if they let them out into the world, they have the right to talk to people, buy things (if they have money) and generally do things that their parents haven't forbidden. Should a teen need a parents specific permission to buy a candy bar?

    And some parents would let their 15 year old buy Plan B if they thought it necessary. I don't think that the FDA should be interfering with that aspect of parental rights.

  • John||

    Sure and those parents could buy that plan B themselves and give it to their daughter Zeb. By not letting the 15 year old buy it themselves, just makes sure that it is the parents buying it and making the decision. Letting them buy it themselves is taking away parental control and parental rights.

    As far as teenagers' rights, they have a right not to be criminally abused and educated. That is really about it. Parents and can and should be able to lawfully restrict all of those things you mention.

  • AuH20||

    But parents certainly should have the right to go OTC, as should all women over 18, right?

    The teen thing... eh, we let them buy condoms. Quite frankly, teenagers have sex. Always have, always will. We used to get them hitched between 14 and 17 for this precise reason. The date of maturity in our society is really insanely late by most historical standards, although the reasons behind it do make sense.

    But you can drop out of high school and start working at what, 16? I think that a 16 year old therefore might have a fair argument for getting their own damn Plan B, as you can essentially become an adult at that age but it will take 2 years for society to recognize that fact.

  • ||

    But you can drop out of high school and start working at what, 16?

    This to me is the big kicker. There's no consensus on any of these age restrictions. There used to be a few states that allowed drinking at an age lower than 21, now everywhere is 21 and up (stupidly retarded). To smoke or buy tobacco products or vote you have to be 18. To start working more than like 20 hours a week you have to be at least 15 or 16 in most states.

    It's a tiered "responsibility" system, and it's bullshit, because in no place will every 15 year old or 16 year old or even 18 year old be the exact same.

    If kids aren't free to work unrestricted until age 18 then I see no problems restricting them to being minors under the jurisdiction of their parents until that age. If they are capable of working (and thereby earning their own money) before then, they should certainly be able to purchase OTC medications such as Plan B. But when kids are not financially capable (or more accurately, financially allowed) to raise a child wholly on their own at a young age because of the other laws in place, it doesn't make sense to give them total emancipation on this scenario.

  • John||

    But parents certainly should have the right to go OTC, as should all women over 18, right?

    For sure. And the rest of your post is about the appropriate age of majority. I think it is too high too. I would be willing to go to 16. But not 15. Regardless that is a different debate.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    The teen thing... eh, we let them buy condoms.

    Bingo. If you're opposed to teenage OTC Plan B, yet aren't against OTC teenage condoms, then your problem is not "parental rights." Come right out and say that you think Plan B causes abortions. Otherwise you are either lying to me, or to yourself.

  • Zeb||

    Letting them buy it themselves is taking away parental control and parental rights.

    It seems like the logical conclusion of this is that no one should be allowed to sell anything to minor children without their parents' explicit permission. I don't think that sounds like a good idea.

    Parents and can and should be able to lawfully restrict all of those things you mention.

    I don't disagree. But I think that parents need to do this themselves, not by enlisting a government agency to make universal rules.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    is that no one should be allowed to sell anything to minor children without their parents' explicit permission

    Isn't that the case anyway? Or are all the TV ads which state, "Make sure you have your parents' permission before ordering," being overcautious?

  • Zeb||

    I think that is mostly to avoid angry parents calling them after they get a bill and refuse to pay.

  • some guy||

    Sure and those parents could buy that plan B themselves and give it to their daughter Zeb. By not letting the 15 year old buy it themselves, just makes sure that it is the parents buying it and making the decision. Letting them buy it themselves is taking away parental control and parental rights.

    John, it isn't government's job to help parents control their kids. Maturity comes at a variety of ages, so tagging anything with an age limit is arbitrary and capricious. It hurts teens who mature faster for no reason. Furthermore, age limits for alcohol haven't really limited teenage access to the substance, so what makes you think this law with limit access to Plan B? If a 15-year old can find someone to buy beer for her, she can certainly find someone to buy a pack of OTC pills. If parents can't control their kids on their own, that's their problem.

  • John||

    Some guy,

    Then why do we have an age of majority at all? Why not let ten year old kids by booze? By your logic that is perfectly fine. The only reason why don't is that we think that if ten year old kids drink, it ought to be their parents not them making the decisions.

    What you are arguing is that parents have no right to control their lives of their children, which is an incredibly statist and oppressive position.

  • Brandon||

    What you are arguing is that parents have no right to control their lives of their children, which is an incredibly statist and oppressive position.

    And John has descended completely into fallacy.

  • some guy||

    What you are arguing is that parents have no right to control their lives of their children, which is an incredibly statist and oppressive position.

    That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing that if a kid has money and someone is willing to trade him something for that money, then the government has no right to stop the transaction. The parent can stop the transaction, using reasonable force if necessary, but not the government. The parent can't empower the government to manage the kid. My stance is the exact opposite of "statist and oppressive" since my stance is the only one that doesn't depend on the state at all. If there were no state my proposal would be reality.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    What you are arguing is that parents have no right to control their lives of their children, which is an incredibly statist and oppressive position.

    Favoring a less restrictive law is now statist. Got it.

    You can still tell your daughter she can't use Plan B until she's 18. What you're doing, though, is asking the state to back you up on this.

    Some Guy and I are not the statists in this situation.

  • John||

    You can still tell your daughter she can't use Plan B until she's 18. What you're doing, though, is asking the state to back you up on this.

    If she can consent to doing it without me being there, I can't tell her shit. What I am doing here is asking to state to recognize my absolute authority over my own children. Yes, I am expecting the state to respect my rights as a parent. And you are asking the state to disregard those rights and pretending you are being anything but a statist in doing so.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    And you are asking the state to disregard those rights and pretending you are being anything but a statist in doing so.

    Anarchy is statism. You really are Red Tony.

  • Taggart||

    When you are talking about a LAW prohibiting something, you are not talking about parental control, but STATE control.

    And what do you mean when you speak of parental "control," exactly? No parent can really "control" a teenager. You can influence. You can set rules and enforce penalties when those rules are violated. (i.e. You can forbid your daughter to buy Plan B, and punish her if you find out she does). The availability of Plan B does not take away your right to forbid the use of Plan B for your daughter. If she buys it anyway, despite your prohibition, she's disobeying you. If the state makes it illegal for her to buy, and she doesn't buy it as a consequence, she isn't obeying YOU, she's obeying the STATE. (And she is no more or less under your "control" than before.)

    I'm not opposed to an age of majority, but I'm opposed to some of the logic in these arguments. And I'm opposed to a wildly inconsistent age of majority. Whatever we as a society decide to be the age of majority, ALL things allowed to adults should be allowed at that age - from serving in the military to voting to drinking to signing contracts to working full time to dropping out of school to buying plan B to consenting to sex. We shouldn't have a different age for everything.

  • Brandon||

    Letting them buy it themselves is taking away parental control and parental rights.

    Not giving me free healthcare is taking away my right to life.

  • John||

    Jesus you are fucking stupid Branon. Like profoundly stupid or more likely profoundly fucking dogmatic.

    If I control the decision, then no one but me can consent to purchasing the stuff. My kid can't consent to buying it if it is up to the parent. If the kid can consent, then the decision is hers not mine.

    Think about that for a bit and get back me.

  • some guy||

    If I control the decision, then no one but me can consent to purchasing the stuff. My kid can't consent to buying it if it is up to the parent. If the kid can consent, then the decision is hers not mine.

    By this logic kids shouldn't be allowed to buy anything without a parent present. Kid wants to buy some candy? How do I know the parent consents to that?

  • ||

    I said the same below. I don't think he's thought this trough.

  • John||

    Yeah Francisco and you ended up having to deny that any parental consent is ever needed for anything. Nothing absurd about that position.

  • Taggart||

    The problem is, you are not arguing, "Parental consent should be required in this ONE PARTICULAR THING, because this one particular thing is gravely immoral (or dangerous to children or whatever), and society therefore has a stake in making it legally impossible to do without parental consent." That would at least be a logical argument. (Not a libertarian argument, but at least a LOGICAL one.) Instead you are arguing, blanket style, that parents have the right to "control" their children in all things, and that for the state to fail to LEGALLY PROHIBIT something is to take away the parent's control.

    That's just not a logical position. If the state does not use the force of law to prohibit your child from doing something, the state is NOT taking away YOUR right to prohibit your child.

    You want the state to back up your prohibition with law. That's not the same as simply allowing you your parental rights.

    So just come clean and argue - "It is my position that this particular thing is of such consquence that the state should back up parental prohibitions against it with legal prohibitions - state control should back up parental control." But don't talk nonsenese about taking away your parental rights. Your rights are not being taken away if your kid is allowed to buy something. YOUR rights remain precisely the same. You have the right to tell him NO, you have the right to withold money, you have the right to ground him, etc.

  • Robert||

    I think there's got to be a middle ground here. Neither allowing children full autonomy nor having someone else have veto over everything they might do makes sense. So we treat different life choices differently, depending on their apparent gravity. Of course that leads to differences of opinion.

  • Brandon||

    Shh. John's on a roll. And he is still not rising above fallacy.

  • Taggart||

    "Until, then teenagers don't have right to do shit unless their parents let them."

    Right. So REGARDLESS of the law, teenagers don't have the RIGHT to buy plan B UNLESS their parents LET them.

  • johnl||

    Forget 15 yo, the judge is ordering "reproductive age". So 10.

  • OldMexican||

    Just how well adolescent women "understand" the fact that the product is not for routine use will only be measureable with any semblance of objectivity after counting all the lawsuits filed against the pharmacies and the pharmaceutical by all those adolescent women who understood something else entirely.

    Otherwise, the people at the CDER are either kidding themselves or bullshitting us.

  • CatoTheElder||

    You are arguing with "science". Ron Bailey said so.

    Why do conservatives hate science so much?

    /s

  • Zeb||

    It's really not a terribly difficult thing to understand.

    In any case, why should the FDA be doing the parent's job and deciding what products teenagers should have access to?

  • John||

    You have it totally backwards Zeb. If they let the 15 year old buy it alone, they are doing the parents job by making it impossible for parents to keep their kids from buying it. Make it OTC but 18 or older to buy. That way if parents want their daughter to use it, they can buy it themselves and give it to her.

  • Zeb||

    What if the parents want their kid to be able to buy it on their own?

    I guess it goes both ways, but I'll always choose less restriction over more. If the parents don't want their kid to buy the stuff, then they can do their best to keep her out of situations where she might have sex or want to buy contraceptives.

  • John||

    What if the parents want their kid to be able to buy it on their own?

    They can get off of their asses and go buy it themselves if it is that important. Come on Zeb, that doesn't strike me as much of a burden.

    I guess it goes both ways, but I'll always choose less restriction over more. If the parents don't want their kid to buy the stuff, then they can do their best to keep her out of situations where she might have sex or want to buy contraceptives.

    That is what you are not getting Zeb. By advocating it go over the counter you are actually advocating more control. Liberals want this because they don't want parents preventing their kids from getting this. They don't people to have the freedom to make decisions for their kids. They want the state making those decisions. And the state's decision is girls should be taking this. You are not thinking through the second order effects of this. If you did, you would realize this policy is about control and taking away parental rights.

  • Zeb||

    What is it, opposite day?

    Your argument is essentially the same as people who say that tax cuts are the same as giving money to rich people.

  • ||

    They don't people to have the freedom to make decisions for their kids. They want the state making those decisions.

    The state isn't telling people to take Plan B, it's just making it legal for them to do so. That's taking the decision out of the hands of the state and putting them in the hands of the individual. No, that individual isn't the parent, but it's also not the state.

  • John||

    It is taking it out of their hands and putting it in the hands of their kids. You are arguing that the state needs to make sure that parents have no ability to control their kids. And that is an unbelievably oppressive position.

  • ||

    I am arguing that since there shouldn't be a state, there shouldn't be a state that gives parents extra ability to control their kids, beyond whatever they can wrest on their own.

  • SugarFree||

    So it's the state's job to help you raise your kids, John? Every other kid and family has to have their right to by booze or EC or porn because you have to have help raising your kids, John? Because you can't exercise the authority you claim to have, John? Are you really so weak?

    It takes a village, right, John?

  • John||

    SF,

    You can buy your kids all the booze and porn you want. Have fun. They are your kids. You have that right. Why? Because you as the parent have the absolute right to control whatever your kid does. And the state should never tell otherwise. That includes empowering your kids to subvert your authority.

    How in the world is saying that you have to affirm your decision that it is okay for your kids to buy booze and porn, taking away your right to make that decision? It is not. You have every right to make that decision. And because you have that right, when it comes time for your kids to buy booze and porn, we go to you. And when you say they can buy them, end of story here you go.

    But in contrast if you don't want them buying it, they don't get to buy it. Why? Because you have parental rights. So when the kid walks in the store, if you are not there, selling it to him is me saying you have parental rights or any authority to say no.

    You see what I mean. If you would just get over your blinding hate for anyone who is even remotely conservative on a personal, you would see the principle I am talking about here.

    I get it. You hate anyone who would not want their kid getting an abortion at 15. You think it is great when the kid goes out and does it anyway. You like that outcome. Fine. But in allowing that to happen, you are taking away people's right to raise their kids.

    Step back from the emotion and the hatred and desired outcomes and just think about it.

  • SugarFree||

    Emotion? Yeah, that's what this is all about.

    You need the state to help you raise your kids, John. It's OK to admit you are incapable of doing it yourself. You need to use the state to force other people to live how you think they should for THE CHILDREN. It's all for THE CHILDREN, isn't it?

  • John||

    No I don't shithead. My kid doesn't have the authority to buying something. I do. I am his parent. So you can't sell it to him because he can't consent to taking it. If he can consent, then I no longer have the authority to control him

    Stop making stupid whorey fucking arguments and think about. You are smarter than this. You just want the government to raise your kids is fucking Tony level retarded. And it is beneath you.

    If I wanted the government to raise my kids, I would want this banned altogether. That is the government doing my job for me making the decision for me. Instead, I just want parents to have the power of consent over their kids.

    Now snap out of it. Or at least show me on the doll where the religious people touched you.

  • SugarFree||

    Poor, John. Too weak to tell his kids what to do.

  • John||

    So can you just admit that you don't have an answer to my point about consent SF? Come on, if you had a good response you would make it.

    Just admit you hadn't thought about that point and don't know what to say to it. It is not that hard.

  • Taggart||

    So you want it to be illegal to ever sell ANYTHING to anyone under the age of 16 without a parent present?

  • Brandon||

    that doesn't strike me as much of a burden.

    And that's what should be the basis of rule of law. Well, one guy doesn't think it's much of a burden, so it's ok to use the power of the state to force it on everyone. This exact argument would effectively justify:

    The War on Drugs
    the Patriot Act
    Obamacare
    Eminent Domain
    90% tax rates
    Industry nationalization
    eugenics

    and any other horror that Tony would fantasizes about. Congratulations, you have just removed any limit on government in existence.

  • John||

    Brandon,

    When you sell a kid whatever product without their parents consent, you are saying their parentts don't have the power to consent or prevent that transaction.

    Why the fuck do you people have such a hard time understanding kids are not adults and parental rights and the rights of the family are rights too

    It is not that fucking hard. If you want your kid to get an abortion, go get them one.

  • Zeb||

    When you sell a kid whatever product without their parents consent, you are saying their parentts don't have the power to consent or prevent that transaction.

    That's how it is for nearly all products now. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to sell anything to a minor without explicit permission from their parents? If not, I don't see how you aren't contradicting yourself.

  • John||

    That is not the way it is for booze or porn Zeb. In most states it is perfectly legal for parents to give their own kids booze in their own homes. And that is as it should be. We are saying the parent has the authority to consent to taking the booze not the kid. That is called respecting parental authority.

    Could you do that on all things? Sure. But it would be totally impracticable. So instead, we pick certain things like booze and birth control that people feel strongly about and think are more important and concentrate our efforts there.

  • Brandon||

    that people feel strongly about and think are more important...

    You ever wonder why people call you Red Tony?

  • Brandon||

    John, I don't even entirely disagree with you, I just take issue with your fallacious arguments, hysterical oversimplification and gross hypocrisy. It's been pretty well established that minors' rights are complicated,and there is not a unified libertarian theory in that regard. But you are completely disregarding that here and treating teenagers as chattel because it is convenient to your argument. And because you do not have solid support for it, you are falling back on various ad hominems and reductio ad absurdums to try to quiet disagreements. What I know is that allowing Plan B OTC for everyone requires less government involvement than forcing minors to go through their parents, so I am inclined in that direction, and your Feinstein-esque shrieking is not very convincing to the contrary.

  • John||

    Forcing minors to go through their parents, is another way of saying parents have final say over their children. See that is where you and I part. I think parents have absolute say over their kids to the point that I am not even sure CPS is moral. Once we go down the road of saying parents don't have say over their children there there is really no way of stopping the government from controlling them, because someone will.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Forcing minors to go through their parents, is another way of saying parents have final say over their children.

    A law saying 18+ does not force a child to go through her parents. It forces a child to go through an older classmate.

    Even if I thought your position was the moral one--and I don't--it's still an ineffective one. You can't prevent your child from getting Plan B any more than you can prevent her from having sex in the first place.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    So instead, we pick certain things like booze and birth control that people feel strongly about and think are more important and concentrate our efforts there.

    So you are in favor of requiring someone to be 18 to buy condoms or spermicides? Or is it just this form of birth control that bothers you?

  • John||

    RMA,

    If we had a realistic age of majority like 16, sure I would. You are either an adult or you are not. And sorry but if you are not an adult and can't consent to sex, then your parents own the consent on whether you buy contraception. Would you be okay with letting 10 year kids buy such things?

    Don't let the age issue distract you. Either parents have the ability to make these decisions for their kids or they don't. What constitutes a "kid" is a different issue.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Would you be okay with letting 10 year kids buy such things?

    From a legal standpoint? Sure. Now, if a 10 year old is buying condoms, then something is obviously wrong somewhere, but I don't agree that the state needs to block the transaction.

  • John||

    So you completely deny the concept that some people are not able to legally consent and that all transactions must have consent?

    Given that, how can you justify statutory rape laws? If a ten year old is having sex with a 30 year old, clearly something is wrong but you wouldn't agree that the state needs to block the transaction would you?

    You can't pick and choose and say kids have the power of consent sometimes but not in others. And understand the child's ability to consent is directly at odds with the parents right to control the child. If you as a parent don't the rights of consent and your child can go off and do something and give valid consent with no worries of your opinion, you don't hold the right to consent anymore, the child does. The child is his own full moral actor at that point.

    Now, do you believe that all children are independent moral actors and it should be thus illegal for parents to act on their behalf and against their wishes? It would seem you do. And that would mean you are rejecting the idea that parents don't have the absolute right to raise their children as they see fit. And I am sorry I disagree. You cannot a free society without that.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    You can't pick and choose and say kids have the power of consent sometimes but not in others.

    Reread this sentence. A LOT.

  • Apple||

    Yesterday, the FDA ruled that women over the age 15 could have over-the-counter access to the pill.

    How do they check to see if a girl is of age? Most 15 year olds don't have ID, do they?

  • ||

    I had my learners permit at 15.

  • Apple||

    Sure, and there plenty of kids that age with passports too. I guess what I'm wondering is will they have to provide proof of age to get it?

  • WTF||

    I thought having to show ID was racist or something. Or maybe that's only for voting; hard to keep track.

  • Zeb||

    I had a passport.

  • John||

    In all seriousness, how dangerous is this stuff if you take it all of the time? I could totally see a teenage girl taking it after every time she has sex with her boyfriend. Is that going to have long term effects? Is some teenage girl going to die or become infertile because she took 15 of these things in two months?

    They are so in love with abortion and killing shit that I bet these questions were not even asked or if they were they were lied about or brushed aside with "no one would ever do that, we have a warning label".

  • OldMexican||

    Re: John,

    In all seriousness, how dangerous is this stuff if you take it all of the time?


    Who cares? Most likely only the undesirables will be the ones buying the pills, anyway. So what if a few are intoxicated by it?

    /Margaret Sanger

  • ||

    Taking it regularly is bad for you. Why is at least removing the prescription requirement for regular birth control, which is a much weaker drug, not on on the table first? Probably because too many people benefit from that requirement.

  • John||

    That is a really good question. I would think this necessarily must be a much stronger drug than the pill. Women have been hurting themselves for centuries taking natural abortion inducers.

    I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that abortion is a death cult. There is no rational reason to object to making the pill OTC but wanting this OTC. They only reason I can think of is that you don't want women avoiding pregnancy in the first place and would instead prefer they get pregnant and have an abortion. It is really sick shit.

  • Robert||

    Well, is there a petition before FDA to make a BCP OTC? If so, who sponsored it? I haven't kept up with the legal question of whether anyone outside gov't other than the marketer of a proprietary drug or medical device is allowed to initiate action to change its status from prescription to nonprescription.

    You would think that at least the marketer of the 1st BCP to achieve nonprescription status would stand to make more money than the other brands. So what am I missing?

  • Robert||

    Well, is there a petition before FDA to make a BCP OTC? If so, who sponsored it? I haven't kept up with the legal question of whether anyone outside gov't other than the marketer of a proprietary drug or medical device is allowed to initiate action to change its status from prescription to nonprescription.

    You would think that at least the marketer of the 1st BCP to achieve nonprescription status would stand to make more money than the other brands. So what am I missing?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In all seriousness, how dangerous is this stuff if you take it all of the time? I could totally see a teenage girl taking it after every time she has sex with her boyfriend. Is that going to have long term effects? Is some teenage girl going to die or become infertile because she took 15 of these things in two months?

    No. The most serious side effect would be that it doesn't work and she would get pregnant anyway.

  • WTF||

    According to Wikipedia. I find it hard to believe that constantly flooding your system with synthetic hormones will not have a deleterious effect over time.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I find it hard to believe that constantly flooding your system with synthetic hormones will not have a deleterious effect over time.

    True, but not anymore than long-term use of the Pill, which is what Plan B really is, a super-dose of the Pill. So yes, you are raising your risk for things like blood-clotting and breast or ovarian cancer.

  • AuH20||

    Yeah. Basically, nature kinda screwed over women with that whole "having periods" thing.

    I have yet to meet a woman who disagree with that premise.

  • ||

    I could totally see a teenage girl taking it after every time she has sex with her boyfriend.

    I don't know about long-term effects, and I don't have first-hand experience with short-term effects, but my understanding is that it is quite unpleasant after taking one of these. Of course, it's possible that some people would do it anyway, but I mean quite unpleasant.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What you're doing is flooding your body with similar hormones that you produce when pregnant, so you're basically experiencing super-morning sickness.

  • ||

    So it's like ipecac? You're puking out the embryo?

  • ||

    My understanding is it's not just that, but also a lot of cramping, and, you know, flushing out. Like a really, really heavy period.

  • ||

    I've seen but obviously not experienced it. That's what it was described as. I can't imagine why anyone would want to go through with it again. People need to be more responsible about contraceptives.

  • ||

    They do. I've only known people who took this as adults, because I'm too old for it to have been otherwise, and they did it after having a condom break--or maybe break--or something like that. And that doesn't seem irresponsible, though I personally prefer to be on the Pill.

    But I want to emphasize, not to you but in general, that this would be significantly painful. I've known women who had to take a couple days off work because of it.

  • ||

    She was sick and in pain for a two days. I guess I just wonder why after that you wouldn't look into more long term contraceptives like the pill or iuds though I understand some people just can't. I'm mainly referring to people who keep risking it because hey I can just pop another pill. Those people are out there.

  • ||

    I guess I just wonder why after that you wouldn't look into more long term contraceptives like the pill or iuds though I understand some people just can't.

    I definitely agree. Some people can't, some people won't, some people are stupid.

  • ||

    Like a really, really heavy period.

    Where's that "human tampon" from Jezebel now?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Pretty much.

  • John||

    With large numbers of people, someone will do anything. If you don't have access to the pill or you do and just forget to take it, throwing for a day or so is a small price to pay to know you won't get pregnant and can still sleep with your b/f.

    I am not saying that is a smart decision. I am just saying it is not out of the realm of possibility when you are talking about a 15 year old or an adult even. People do stupid things.

  • Brandon||

    You know John, it would really strengthen your argument if you could find someone who had died from OD'ing on plan B. Then no one would be able to argue with you without being a heartless monster. It's a shame no one has been decent enough to take one for the team and give you a nice, photogenic corpse to stand on.

  • John||

    You know what would be great for your case Brandan? If you would try being something besides a retard troll and actually gave the issue some thought.

  • Brandon||

    I have. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. You, on the other hand, came to a conclusion and are grasping at straws to support it. Go back and read your posts, pretend they were written by someone else. If you can look at them objectively, you'll see the fallacies.

  • UK's best online casinos||

    I am pretty much happy to overcome all the difficulties and have some spare time to read and enjoy reading your blog.

  • CatoTheElder||

    This is not lie. It's not even a misstatement. It's nothing at all like the ruse that Benghazi was caused by an amateurish video on Youtube or the Fast n Furious denials.

    It's just the implementation of the FDA's opinion. Margaret Hamburg just expressed an opinion based upon some evidence. The FDA's decision was just an implementation of that opinion as subsequently modified by the opinions of other bureaucrats.

    I doubt that there was very much science at all that informed any of these opinions. The scientific method involves more than data collection and the formation of an hypothesis. I especially doubt that 14-year-olds are sufficiently developed to make rational, informed decisions regarding the proper, limited use of Plan B, its side effects, and its interactions with other medications. Even 17-year-olds are not trusted to administer their own analgesics and prescription medication by the government schools. We'll see how it works out ... it probably won't be too bad.

  • John||

    Difficult to imagine them ever having this much faith in the judgement of teenagers or adults for that matter if this drug didn't involve abortion. If think if you told them that making this stuff OTC would kill say a hundred girls a year and make a few thousand more infertile, they would be totally okay with it. Anything to further the cause of abortion.

  • Zeb||

    Um, this pill is to avoid situations where abortion might be desirable. If you don't like abortion, you should be for handing this out in schools.

  • John||

    Umm, this pill is an abortion. It is just a very early term one. And no, we shouldn't be handing this out in schools. The Pill maybe. Condoms, sure.

    Right now we are creating a situation where a girl has to go to a doctor to get the pill and also remember to take it every day or she can just go to CVS and buy this and take one after every time she has sex. That doesn't strike me as a particularly good set of incentives.

  • Ruckus||

    Like how, if you screw up your back/knees helping a friend move, it's easier to take $20 to the bar and get 2 days worth of pain pills than go to the dr for proper diagnosis and treatment.

  • John||

    Yes. Or if you are feeling depressed it is easier to say nothing then go to a doctor for help and risk having the cops show up and take your guns away. Like that.

  • ||

    John, Plan B is not an abortifacient. There isn't even evidence that it prevents implantation. It is essentially an emergency dose of the pill as a last measure to prevent fertilization.

  • John||

    It is only not an abortifacient if you believe life doesn't begin at conception. And it is one also in the sense that it works by causing the woman's body to flush everything out, and that of course is where the problems come from.

  • ||

    I believe life begins at conception and am pro-life as I have stated many times here. It works by preventing conception in the first place. It works the same way as the pill, it is just a higher dose.

  • ||

    Yeah, you're wrong here John. Conception doesn't happen at the point a male ejaculates inside a female (insemination). There has to be insemination first, but the sperm must reach the egg before it is conception, and that's why there is a 120 hour time window on this.

  • ||

    And that is why it is emergency contraceptive. Even if you take it pretty quickly that ship might have already sailed. Or maybe you take it 2 days later and it still works because the egg hasn't been fertilized yet.

  • ||

    Fertilization... thanks. It's been awhile since I've had to take biology, so my memory of the terms is a little off even if I understand the concepts still.

  • ||

    Eh, fertilization and conception are pretty interchangeable scientifically.

  • John||

    Does this work before or after conception? If it works before, then it is not abortion. But I was under the impression it works after.

  • ||

    It prevents fertilization if fertilization has not yet occurred. It may (we don't know) also prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, which is the part that some pro-lifers believe make it a (possible) abortifacient.

  • John||

    Then I stand corrected Nikki. Possible won't feed the bulldog. This is not an abortificant.

  • ||

    I'm glad you've been educated John. As a pro-life atheist this is one of the most frustrating topics for me. There are far to many religious pro-lifers making this claim because they don't like contraception in the first place or don't know any better and just repeat what they've been told.

    I personally think having people be free to use every contraceptive need is going to save more abortion from happening, especially in the short term, than praying outside a clinic or campaigning for some jackass politician in washington.

  • Taggart||

    Yes, that's screwed up. How can they demand a prescription for the pill and then make this over the counter? If both were over the counter, it would make sense. If the pill was over the counter, but this wasn't, that would make sense too. But this being over the counter while the pill is not? Logically absurd, and it certainly would seem to encourage opting for an abrotificant rather than a contraceptive, because the abortificant is easier to get, even if it is less responsible and less safe.

  • Taggart||

    Self-correction: didn't realize Plan B didn't work as an abortificant. At any rate, as a higher dose of the pill, it is still quite illogical that it is over the counter and the pill is not.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Plan B can prevent the implantation of an embryo, which is abortion in the eyes of many pro-lifers.

  • Zeb||

    That's ridiculous.

  • John||

    No its not. What, other than faith and various bullshit philosophical arguments about "personhood" would cause one to conclude life doesn't begin at conception?

    What is ridiculous is the belief that we undergo this magical transformation from mass of useless cells to human being when we pass through the birth canal.

  • Zeb||

    Personhood is a philosophical concept. Philosophical arguments are the only kind of argument that can be had about it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    From their point of view, why? If you believe that life begins at conception, an embryo is alive; and if you doing something that prevents that embryo from thriving, such as taking an abortifacient, then you are willingly aborting a pregnancy.

    One may disagree with when life begins, but the belief that preventing an embryo from implanting is abortion is logically consistent if you accept the premises above.

  • Zeb||

    It's not even an embryo, it's a zygote.

  • John||

    And that is an artificial distinction zeb. Is it fertilized? Does it have a full set of human DNA? What is so magical about the moment of attaching itself to the womb? Why is it a life then but not before?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A zygote is the first stage of an embryo.

  • Zeb||

    And a sperm and an egg are the first stage of a zygote.

  • Robert||

    Who cares about whether it's alive? Or whether it's a "person"? The real question is, what kinds of living things is it OK to kill? I say it's OK to kill anything that doesn't mind dying and is not the property of anyone who'd mind its dying. It's OK under some circumstances to kill even some things that mind dying or whose owner minds them dying, but those circumstances don't apply to the conditions we're contemplating.

  • ||

    There is no evidence of that. Here's what Ron said yesterday that explains why it would be extremely difficult to show one way or the other.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think, knowing how the female body changes when gravid, it is appropriate to use inductive reasoning to assume that if you flood the body with pregnancy hormones, the body is going to look at an non-implanted zygote and think "What the fuck is that doing here?" and attempt to flush it out.

  • ||

    The evidence that is out there is increasingly coming out on the side that it doesn't do so. People have been talking out of their asses on it for so long I am waiting for better evidence. But stating that it stops implantation as a fact is just bullshit.

    And lets keep in mind that failed implantation is incredibly common without any intervention.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Not everyone who cries "Science, Science" will enter the kingdom of evidence-based policymaking.

    CDER seemed to show a lot of optimism about the ability of horny teenage girls to use this product responsibly - but if anyone suggested that, if they were responsible they wouldn't be having extramarital sex, we're met with the response that they'll do it anyway - even if they can't get Plan B, which by hypothesis is a risky omission. And as for the parents, they are apparently presumed to be too dumb to supervise their daughters' sex lives (since AFAIK nothing in current regulations stops parents from getting this stuff for their daughters).

  • John||

    Maybe kids have changed. But from my experience as a teenager, the idea that girls wouldn't use the hell out of this stuff just to be on the safe side seems like fantasy. Put yourself back to the days when you were 16 and had your first girlfriend and were terrified of getting her pregnant but so badly wanted to screw her every time you had the chance. Wouldn't you have encouraged her to take this stuff as much as she could to eliminate the risk?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wouldn't you have encouraged her to take this stuff as much as she could to eliminate the risk?

    Considering the Pill works much better....no.

  • John||

    The pill is not OTC. What if she isn't on the pill because she doesn't want to ask her parents? That is the insanity of this. They are refusing to make the pill OTC but are okay with making a much stronger and less effective substitute OTC.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh, I fully agree with that.

  • Brandon||

    So, John, if the pill becomes OTC as well, you'd be ok with Plan B being OTC?

  • ||

    Depends strongly on cost. Condoms are still the cheapest, short of PULL OUT!

  • Robert||

    There's a measure I suppose we could use as a proxy, and that I've seen statistics on but forgot the numbers: What percentage of teenage girls use deodorant against the chance their armpits might otherwise be stinky? Yeah, I know, much lower stakes -- less severe consequences for failure, less side effect of the treatment -- but it might give us an idea of how they tend to behave.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    As a cynic, I would suggest that the Obama administration is hoping to lose in the appeals court, so it can give girls access to this Plan B without getting their own hands dirty - and the appeals court (even if some of its judges were appointed by Obama) won't get blamed.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yeah, this is the Second Circuit, where of the 13 active judges, 5 were appointed by Obama and 3 by Clinton. Of the 10 senior judges, 6 were appointed by either Carter or Clinton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....._the_court

    How much are you willing the bet that Obama is praying for a loss in this Democratic-majority court?

  • Zeb||

    Some parents suck and don't care what their kids do, or even think it is normal to get knocked up at 16 and go on welfare. The children of such parents are just out of luck, or what?

  • John||

    The children of such parents are just out of luck, or what?

    Yes. That is because the rights of parents and the principle of parental control control over the home instead of government control is a HELL of a lot more important than the individual 16 year old kid's ability to fuck without fear of consequences.

    It is none of your damn business that some parents suck. Keep yours and the government's nose out of it.

  • SugarFree||

    Letting a product be sold that someone wants to but is not "governmental control." It's the exact opposite.

  • John||

    No it is not. Letting it be sold to anyone who wants it is making it impossible for parents to prevent their kids from using it. It is the government deciding that kids not parents should make this decision. It is telling every parent, "tough shit if you don't want your daughter taking it, we are going to make sure every store in America will sell it to her without your consent"

    That is government control just subtlety. That is why liberals are in love with this being OTC when they never want to make anything else OTC. Making sure parents can't control their kids and the kids make decisions because the government says they can, is a huge part of the state being able to control the family.

  • Zeb||

    Every store in America will sell a Snickers bar to a 9 year old without parental consent. Should Snickers bars on;y be sold to people over 18? Some parents don't want their kids to have them, after all.

  • John||

    Is a snickers bar the subject of the kind of moral debate that abortion is? Is buying and eating a snickers bat a life changing event?

    Ah no. So your analogy doesn't work Zeb. Why can't you grasp this. Do you really think liberals mean well here? And don't you understand the tension between the rights of the child and the sanctity of the family?

  • ||

    Zeb wants the booze and cigarettes to be right next to the bazooka joe packs.

  • Zeb||

    I don't fucking care what liberals intend.

  • Zeb||

    Is a snickers bar the subject of the kind of moral debate that abortion is?

    Yeah, sort of. You ever hear a public health nazi go on about HFCS and sugar? Sugar is toxic and needs to be taxed and regulated, according to some.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Zeb, you don't understand. What John meant to say was, does John think that a Snickers bar should be the subject of the kind of moral debate that abortion is.

  • Robert||

    But it's not only morals that motivate; some parents are very anti-sugar.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The government taking away parental authority over their daughters expands the power of the state at the expense of the family. This is the real-world implication of this policy.

  • Zeb||

    You are saying things that don't make sense. Removing government restrictions on certain products expands the state? Are you fucking serious?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    See my 11:41 comment below.

  • John||

    No Zeb. You are being hard headed and not thinking about the second order effects of things. If the rule makes it practically impossible for parents to prevent their kids from obtaining this stuff, then rule has decided that parents can't stop their kids from doing this. That is government control over the family. It is just doing so in a subtle and indirect way.

  • Zeb||

    Parents have control over the home. But not over the rest of the world. The world is full of things that parents might not want their kids to get their hands on. Should everything that any parent wouldn't like their kid to have be age restricted?

    Keep yours and the government's nose out of it.

    That's exactly what I am arguing for. You are the one arguing for government control. Verging on Doublespeak.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Family authority is one of the buttresses of a free society. If families don't make decisions for their kids, who will fill the vacuum? The state.

  • John||

    That's exactly what I am arguing for.

    No you are arguing for the opposite. You are arguing that the government should make it impossible for me to prevent my daughter from buying and using this stuff. You are arguing for the government to come into people's homes and tell them they don't get to make this decision as parents that it has already been made for them.

    Why can't you see that?

  • Zeb||

    Why can't you see that?

    Because it is not true. You can prevent your daughter from access to plan B. It's just harder and it will probably make her hate you. Parents are still allowed to control where their children go and who they associate with.

  • John||

    Not unless you put a leash on her. You can't at all. You just like the idea of girls having access to this and are okay with the government pissing all over parents to achieve that. Good for you. But please stop pretending you are not arguing in favor of government encroachment on the family here.

  • SugarFree||

    Parents who have a daughter who needs EC have already proven they can't exercise the "authority" they supposedly already have. I guess the TOP. MEN. in her life didn't have enough power to get the job done. I'm sure more power will take care of everything.

  • John||

    Again SF,

    You don't like parents controlling their kids. That is your right to think that. But please then admit that parental rights belong to the state in libertarian land. That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. But your call.

  • SugarFree||

    You didn't keep her from getting pregnant, John. Seems like you are falling down on the job. You need the state to EC from the daughter you have failed to protect. You are so weak and ineffectual, you can't even keep her from buying pills. So you need the state to lock them up behind a counter for you.

  • ||

    That is because the rights of parents and the principle of parental control control over the home instead of government control is a HELL of a lot more important than the individual 16 year old kid's ability to fuck without fear of consequences.

    And this...is why I believe in kid lib. When I was 16 I was my own moral agent, not my parents' doll.

  • John||

    Sure. Then lower the age of majority. But what about when you were ten? Were you your own moral agent then? Five?

    If you believe in kid lib, should there be any family or parental control at all? If so, then why?

    Your problem seems to be with the age of majority being too high, which while a valid argument, is a different one than the one at hand.

  • ||

    If you believe in kid lib, should there be any family or parental control at all? If so, then why?

    I find families an inherently oppressive social institution that are virtually impossible to navigate ethically. As an anarchist, I don't think there should be an age of majority.

    Here is my issue: you have a kid. You have created a being that will be totally dependent on you for sustenance for an indefinite period of time because its limited physical capabilities. That in turn gives you the ability to control them to an extent possible only in this situation--and only because you created the situation. I realize that most parents are working for the welfare of their children, but there's no way that isn't an ethically fraught situation. How do you know, as a parent, when your child vests with the full moral rights and responsibilities of an adult? You may know your children very well, but you can't read their minds, even as the best possible parent.

  • SugarFree||

    A child is a tyrant with absolute rights until birth and a abject slave until 18. Logic.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    As an anarchist, I don't think there should be an age of majority.

    If you tell the kid to try the broccoli, clean the room, turn down the music or at least play something with some guitar, or finish that damned paper so it can get edited and the kid tells you to fuck off because she's her own moral agent, then what? Do moral agents have to pay their own bills or submit, within a broad discretionary range, to the will of those who do?

  • $park¥||

    If you tell the kid to try the broccoli, clean the room, turn down the music or at least play something with some guitar, or finish that damned paper so it can get edited and the kid tells you to fuck off because she's her own moral agent, then what? Do moral agents have to pay their own bills or submit, within a broad discretionary range, to the will of those who do?

    Let me give you my personal answers. I don't give my kids (17 and 12) commands, I ask them to do things. When I ask them to do things, I offer incentives if they do what I ask. If they don't do what I ask, they don't get the incentives that I offer. As an example, my kids only started doing chores around the house a couple months ago. As a result, I started giving them an allowance. The only money they ever got previously was gift money. I pay my kids' living expenses because as of now I feel responsible for their well-being. I don't provide them with many of the niceties that most parents feel it is necessary to give their kids, eg cell phones.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I give my kids (13 and 12) commands. I don't offer incentives for them to clean their rooms or do the dishes when it is their turn. That's part of their responsibility as part of the family. I do usually give them timeframes for their tasks, but the tasks themselves aren't up for debate.

    They get an allowance in order to practice with budgeting, planning, and delayed gratification. It's isn't tied to chores because, again, chores are going to be done, regardless.

    They have simple cellphones, more for my convenience than theirs, though the younger daughter is saving for an iPhone. The cost of the data plan versus the amount of time she's not on wifi somewhere is giving her pause.

  • $park¥||

    I give my kids (13 and 12) commands. I don't offer incentives for them to clean their rooms or do the dishes when it is their turn. That's part of their responsibility as part of the family. I do usually give them timeframes for their tasks, but the tasks themselves aren't up for debate...

    This is the way I and my siblings were raised. I don't see anything inherently better in doing it this way over the way I am raising my children. I'm not saying either one is wrong, the two ways are just different. And so far, as best as I can tell, my kids are turning out just fine.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I find families an inherently oppressive social institution that are virtually impossible to navigate ethically.

    Sorry, nic, you're traveling to Cloud-Cuckoo Land here. I would argue that the family, as it is understood in 21th Century Western culture, is the closest thing we have to truly Anarchist "societies of mutual aid". Two or more people choose to cohabitate and divide labor by a scheme of their choosing. If the pairing is biologically compatible (or they choose to adopt) they can have children. The caregivers provide aid to the child, in exchange for companionship.

    How do you know, as a parent, when your child vests with the full moral rights and responsibilities of an adult?

    That's easy, by their actions.

  • ||

    Well, I know that it is radical and that 99.99999% of parents will disagree with me. Couples are societies of mutual aid, but their children did not consent to join the collective.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Couples are societies of mutual aid, but their children did not consent to join the collective.

    Have you found a better way to create, nurture, and educate new humans?

  • ||

    Have you found a better way to create, nurture, and educate new humans?

    No, it's clearly impossible for anyone to consent to be born. Most people don't find that morally problematic. I still do.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, you're in good company as both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer puzzled over the same thing.

    For me, the argument of consent is moot. A being cannot consent to something before that being exists. At the point of time that being comes into existence, it is fait accompli. So, I argue that an ethical argument that demands a prerequisite of consent for existence from the being which has yet to come into existence to be nonsensical.

  • ||

    Yep, that is pretty much the other option (other than not thinking about it at all, which I think is most common). I'm not 100% opposed to it by any means, just also not there (yet).

  • John||

    I like you Nikki. But that is insane. First, whatever the flaws of the institution, what is the alternative? The state? Someone has to take care of children. And I sure as hell don't want the state doing it. And I don't want strangers doing it. So that leaves parents.

    When does a child become a moral actor capable of making their own decisions/ Who knows. It depends on the kid. That is not a decision anyone can make unless they are intimately involved with the situation. Clearly at some point they are not, an infant certainly isn't and at some point they are, we all grow up sometime.

    The only thing we can do is leave that decision up to the closest and most knowledgeable people the parents. Will they get it wrong? Sure. But they will only get it wrong for their kids, as opposed to the state who will get it wrong for all kids.

    And the family has the added bonus of being the best bulwark against tyranny. Every totalitarian state to my knowledge has tried to destroy the family and control the raising of children going all the way back to Plato's Republic. We can never allow the state or the community to control the raising of children. I would go so far as to say the very existence of CPS is tyranny.

    So yeah, I understand your concerns. But you are speaking of a necessary evil here. The evil of not having families is much much worse.

  • ||

    The only thing we can do is leave that decision up to the closest and most knowledgeable people the parents. Will they get it wrong? Sure. But they will only get it wrong for their kids, as opposed to the state who will get it wrong for all kids.

    I agree, and I don't propose a state solution, or really any solution. I'm just pointing out that it is a morally fraught area--a necessary evil, perhaps, as you say--and also that I think it should be very, very easy for children to emancipate themselves as soon as they are able to take care of themselves.

  • John||

    That is pretty fraught too. Should the 12 year old be able to emancipate herself to go live with her new found 30 year old b/f? What about that?

    Here is the thing. It sucks to be a kid. And it sucks to be a teenager. But tough shit. Your time will come. It is not like this is forever. If you are not being abused, then suck it up. Some day you may be a parent and will be awfully glad the government isn't ruling your life and how you raise your kids.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    When I was 16 I was my own moral agent, not my parents' doll.

    You Hellraiser you! Were you a "naughty girl" (who needed love too)?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So *all* parents are to be stripped of their parental rights because some parents (many of them single mothers) aren't responsible? A lot of this can be blamed on the genius idea of keeping children in abusive single-mother "families," which is something of a policy reversal.

    And if the parents are that bad, are we presuming that their teenage daughters will magically become more responsible than the parents?

  • AuH20||

    I would like to emphasize this point. Given that there are whole families, a line of single mothers, wherein each new generation gets pregnant as quickly as the government will hand out benefits, absolutely anything to discourage this short of forced sterilization could be a welcome reprieve for society.

    Like, if a girl was from that family, and her mom was pushing her to get pregnant so she could move out to her own section 8 housing and start getting government money, but she didn't want her... SHE is the case I want OTC Plan B for teenagers. Rarer, much rarer, than the other case, but still.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Then why not a law allowing illegitimate children who live with a single mother (and who can provide a certificate of such, furnished by the local welfare office) to buy Plan B? That would meet your objection without stripping intact families of their authority over their daughters.

    But such a law probably wouldn't make much of a dent in the problem you describe. "Yeah, I better get some Plan B or else I might get pregnant and have the government provide me with a free home!" That is what your hypothetical teenage girl would have to say to take advantage of your law.

  • AuH20||

    I like your law.

    And even if in .0001% of the cases we had someone who grew some moral fiber and decided they wanted a better life, your law would be worth it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Strictly speaking, I was saying that a law like this would meet your specific objection without having to affect intact families. I'm not saying I'd support such an enactment myself.

  • AuH20||

    Actually, the Jezzies are mystified by this too:

    http://jezebel.com/your-nightl.....-486729155

    Some are even getting slightly upset with the Obama administration! They may write an angry letter!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And because no one ever reads 24/7....

    FREE THE SAN DIEGO 33!!!!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: some guy,

    (I reply to you away from the thread because this is an important point)

    But ultimately, who cares if some teenagers believe foolish things. That's not an excuse for limiting the rights of all teenagers.


    I sincerely and wholeheartedly agree with you. This is not the case where the argument is that teenagers have no rights or that they have rights. The issue at hand is that the level of government intervention has created this culture of dependancy on government oversight and ruling that distorts people's thinking on matters such as this. In other words, people have become so accustomed to the idea that government is there to protect them from harmful things that when products such as Plan-B, which was restricted previously by this same government, becomes readily available, people will believe that the product is safe, precisely because the governent now allows the free purchase of it.

    Sans government interference in people's decisions, people have to rely on their own common sense and skepticism before purchasing such products. In the end, this is the healthier approach. With the market being contaminated by government interference, people are left with LESS intellectual tools to properly evaluate the risks and rewards of purchasing products like Plan B, and that is what is being argued here by me and others.

  • John||

    Yeah OM. People can totally rely on their common sense on this. of course since there is no practical way of preventing their daughter from purchasing the stuff, that common sense means absolutely nothing because their daughters will be making the decision.

    Your point is absolutely valid if we are talking about adults. But we are not. And when you are talking about children, you are talking about parents and parental rights. If parents think their daughters ought to be taking this stuff, more power to them. Go buy it and give it to them. But if they don't, some pharmacists shouldn't be stepping in and saying that decision doesn't matter by selling to a kid. That is what this is about.

    No parent's ability to let their kid take this stuff is in anyway infringed by saying the parent not the kid has to buy it. But when you let the kid buy it alone, you are saying no parent can ever tell their kid no unless they are willing to make sure their kid never visits a grocery store or pharmacy alone.

  • ||

    But when you let the kid buy it alone, you are saying no parent can ever tell their kid no unless they are willing to make sure their kid never visits a grocery store or pharmacy alone.

    John

    How, as a parent, do you stop your kid from listening to satanic death metal or playing violent video games or drinking coffee? Do they need be illegal too? Or can a parent forbid those things?

  • John||

    Not my problem Francisco. It is hard. But the point is I have the authority as a parent to do so. That means my did doesn't have the authority to consent to such. So if I find it and don't like it, I get to throw it out.

    If my kid doesn't have the power of consent. Then he doesn't have the power to purchase. Sure, we let that reality slide on some things. But on important things we don't. Kids can't sign loan papers or make large purchases without their parents' consent. They can't get medical treatment without their parents' consent. Why? Because they don't have the legal power to consent, their parents do. That is because the law recognizes that the authority to do such things lies with the parents not the kid.

    When you say that a child can buy this or that without their parents being there and effectively buying it for them or ratifying the decision, you are saying that the decision lies with the child not the parents. You are saying the child has the legal authority to consent to the transaction. And that is why saying this stuff can be bought OTC by children is such an infringement on parental rights.

  • ||

    BULLSHIT!

    If you don't want your kid drinking caffeine, is it an infringement on your parental rights that the sale of caffeinated drinks is not illegal to minors? Is the fact that they can "consent" to buying a coke infringing on your right as a parent?

    Your logic is faulty.

  • John||

    In a sense yes. But because caffeine is so benign and noncontroversial and such a provision so hard to enforce, we don't bother with it.

    Since you like reductio absurdium arguments so much, then apply the same principle to your position. If it is wrong to demand parental consent for an abortion pill, then why isn't it wrong to demand parental consent for anything?

    Isn't demanding it for medical care also wrong? What about school activities? If the school decides tomorrow that it is taking all of the 8th graders to a pro Obama rally and your kid wants to go, you don't have the right to say no do you? And certainly the school is under no obligation to inform you of this or get anything beyond the kid's consent, right?

    Just because it is not practical to demand affirmative parental consent for everything a kid does, doesn't mean the parents still don't hold that authority and for some very important things we should make the effort to do so. Clearly medicine, booze, school trips to political rallies and such would warrant that. If not, then please explain to me where you have objected to parental consent to medical procedures in the past or why it is all of the sudden and important issue when it involves abortion.

  • ||

    If it is wrong to demand parental consent for an abortion pill, then why isn't it wrong to demand parental consent for anything?

    Why does there need to be a law? You, as a parent, already have the legal authority to make all decisions for your child until they are 18. (We can debate the rightness or wrongness of that law.)

    Your kid will either listen to you or they won't. You, as a parent need to realize the necessity of progressively allowing them more freedom as they mature. It is again your call on how quickly or slowly to dole out those responsibilities.

    I am against ALL government mandated age requirements. ALL those decisions should be left to the parent. You don't want your kid going on field trips, tell the school that you want them to send a permission slip home for each. It's not up to the state to mandate such things.

  • John||

    Why does there need to be a law?

    Because the only way for the parent and not the kid to have the authority in the rest of society is for the law to say that the child doesn't have the power of consent.

    Her is the principle. A business can only sell things or deliver services to people who consent such. Right? If a business started delivering goods to a person in a coma, it would never be able to collect on the debt because the guy in the coma never consented to the transaction. Same way if a minor goes and signs a contract to buy a house. The contract is no good because the minor doesn't have the capacity to consent to the contract.

    In the context of medical procedures, the hospital gets a consent form from the parents because if they don't, they have technically committed a battery when they touch the kid since the person who held to power of consent, the parent, didn't do so.

    It is the same principle here. A 15 year old goes into a pharmacy to buy this stuff without her parent. The pharmacy can't sell it to her just like they couldn't get her to sing a loan on a car because she doesn't have the legal authority to consent to the transaction. All we are doing here is telling business that they have to follow the age of consent and get legal consent for whatever transaction they make.

  • ||

    House/candybar/morning after pill, I draw no distinction. You have the authority to tell your kid no. You are not required to sanction their every move. Why some and not others? Who decides? You? Do you get to decide for my kid?

    The only reason the kid doesn't have consent to buy a house is because some idiot made it a law. Anyone who would sell a child a house without seeing the money is a fool. Anyone who would give a child a loan for a home, is also a fool. See, no government required. No law required.

  • some guy||

    And the house example is absurd because no one would give a kid a mortgage. And if they did, so what? They foreclose when the kid misses his first payment and the kid has bad credit for 7 years. Big whoop. Idiot lender learns his lesson.

  • John||

    Then you don't believe in any form of majority Francisco? Is it your position that parents should have no authority over their childrens' consent?

    Isn't is going to be a bit hard to totally emancipate kids at birth? And if not at birth then when? And if there is an age at which kids are emancipated, then your issue here is that you think 15 year olds should no longer be under the control of their parents.

    Fair enough, but it doesn't disprove my point about parental rights just argues they should end at a younger age.

  • John||

    And Fransisco what about medical procedures? Is it your opinion that parents should have no control over their child's medical care? Do you really think an 8 year old child is competent to make those decisions? And if they are not who should if not the parents? And if they have control over an 8 year old, when does that control end?

    Step off your soap box and think about this for a minute. I know you hate religious people. And you can vent your rage lots of other places. But don't let that hate stop you from thinking clearly about what this is about. Don' let your desire to ensure that no one anywhere keeps their kid from having an abortion keep you from understanding the concepts of capacity and consent.

  • some guy||

    All we are doing here is telling business that they have to follow the age of consent and get legal consent for whatever transaction they make.

    Ultimately it seems we are arguing over age of consent laws. I think these laws are wrong because I've met 15 year olds who were more mature than the average 30 year old. Age of responsibility should be determined by maturing, not age. How do you gauge maturity? Well, the "buying a house" model that you keep mentioning is a good model to follow. Take a close look at someone's financial history and you can get a pretty good idea of their level of maturity.

  • some guy||

    And one last thing. In libertopia, if I find out someone is selling booze to my kid and I don't like it, I'll take it up with my kid and I'll take it up with the vendor. Most people aren't going to sell booze to a ten year old, even if doing so were legal.

  • John||

    Some guy,

    All of the arguments you are making apply to statutory rape. If your 10 year old daughter wants to have sex with a 30 year old guy, why is that the law's problem? It is your problem isn't it? Why should the government be responsible for raising your kids and ensure your 10 year old doesn't have sex with some old guy? Your arguments work just as well there.

    Of course they don't work there and don't work in this context either because you are ignoring the issue of consent and capacity. It is the law's problem when your ten year old has sex with a 30 year old because a ten year old does not have the capacity to consent to sex and the 30 year old and thus raping her.

    It is the same thing here. When you say the 15 year old should be able to buy the abortion pill, you are saying that the 15 year old has the capacity to consent and understand that action. We don't need her parents to do it for her because she alone has the ability to make that decision.

    Is a 15 year old qualified to do so? Maybe. But tat 15 year old can't work and can't live on her own by law. So I think that she doesn't have the capacity and the decision lies with her parents.

    But understand that is the debate here. If you think 15 should be the age of majority, that is your right and it is a fair point. But if thing this issue is about "you just want the government to raise your children", you are a fucking moron who completely misunderstands what is going on here.

  • John||

    Age of responsibility should be determined by maturing, not age.

    So responsibility should not be determined by the parents but the child themselves or some outside force. My position is that parents have rights over their children and that below a certain age it is the parents' rights to determine what a kid is mature enough to do.

    Who do you think should? Are you arguing that no parent anywhere as any right to control their kids? As soon as their kid decides they are old enough to do something that is it? They are old enough by your view?

    That is one way to do it. But doing that destroys any parental rights or sanctity of the family.

  • some guy||

    Who do you think should? Are you arguing that no parent anywhere as any right to control their kids? As soon as their kid decides they are old enough to do something that is it? They are old enough by your view?

    That sounds about right to me. If the kid chooses to ignore his parents, his parents should basically have two options.

    1. Deal with it while trying to correct the behavior themselves.
    2. Kick the little bastard out and see if he comes crawling back.

    There are plenty of ways a parent can prevent a kid from buying something they don't want them too without resorting to government coercion of others.

    Talk to the kid. Talk to the vendor. Ground the kid at home. Take all the kid's money. Pay the vendor to not sell to the kid. Take comforts from the kid until he complies. Etc. etc. Some combination of these approaches will work in 99% of cases. I don't want government to start throwing its weight around just for the last 1%.

    And finally, what about kids in shitty homes where they are actually the most responsible person around? Shouldn't they be able to take control of their own lives?

  • John||

    That sounds about right to me. If the kid chooses to ignore his parents,

    Then the kid is an adult and it is just like an adult saying no. So by your logic a parent can't punish a child. A parent couldn't even so much as send a kid to his room since doing so would constitute false imprisonment. And parents can't kick kids out on the street. That is child neglect.

    And your position also renders all statutory rape laws moot. If the kid is an adult when he decides he is, then any consent to sex is going to be valid. It doesn't matter if the girl was 10. She wanted the sex. She decided she was mature enough.

    I am not really sure those are the results you would want.

  • Zeb||

    And they are never going to be able to develop those intellectual tools if the government keeps restricting everything that might be bad. You are reaching conclusions completely at odds with your stated principles: government interference and overregulation makes people ill equipped to evaluate risks. Therefore government must continue interfering and overrregulating. How is this not what you are saying?

  • John||

    Not my problem Zeb. What your kids get and when they get it is your business. I am only concerned that you as a parent have that authority. It is none of mine or anyone else' business how you use it.

    I am not saying kids can't get this. Just saying if they do, it should be because their parents are okay with it.

  • Zeb||

    Well, that was more directed at OM, who some days is super-anarchist and some days thinks that government needs to help parents enforce their rules, apparently.

  • John||

    Government is not helping enforce the rules Zeb. The government is recognizing that parents make the rules and thus kids can't lawfully consent to buying such things.

    Do you see the difference?

  • some guy||

    Old Mexican, I see your point and I agree. The first real world lesson any child should learn is "buyer beware". A lot of people are going to eventually learn that lesson, one way or another. I guess I would prefer the "swim or die" method of teaching because I have little sympathy for those who have been taken in by the myth that the nanny state can keep them safe.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    I've saved it for later. Better be funny.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It has Obama kicking a young girl in the face.

  • $park¥||

    And a little girl sneezing a baby out.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fuck any 'libertarian' who is opposed to 15 year olds making autonomous decisions.

  • John||

    So what age do you think should be the age of majority? Should their be an age of majority at all? Should any parent any where have any ability to make a decision for their child at any age or should those things be completely left up to the state?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now the issue has narrowed to under-15 girls.

  • SouthernSeaDog(Y-tarian)||

    But an 18 year old can't buy a pistol and carry it for protection?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Is there anything that the Obama adminisration HASN'T reflexively lied about?

  • John||

    Here is the bottom line for all of this. Do parents have a right to control what kinds of substances their kids ingest? If they do, then the kid can't lawfully consent to buying the stuff, only the parents can. So if a kid walks into a store, the store can't sell the stuff to him without him parents being there, since they have no way of knowing if the parents consented. Who has the authority here the parents or the kid? If the parents do, then the kid can't consent and thus can't buy it alone. If the kid does, than he can. That is the essence of the issue, consent. You don't have the authority unless control consent. And if control consent, the can't purchase it if you are not there. It is like a contract. Kids are not allowed to sign contracts. Why? Because that authority lies with their parents. Any contract a 15 year old signs is invalid without their parents consent. Why? Because their parents control what contracts their kids enter into not the kids. Same principle here. If the parent controls what medicine the kid takes, then the kid can't enter into a lawful purchase of that medicine without the parent being there and consenting.

    A lot of you get wrapped up around the age of 15. And that is a different issue. Maybe 15 should be the age of majority. But it is not right now. And saying that 15 should be the age of majority and therefore the parents' consent is not needed is different than saying that parental consent is never needed regardless of age.

  • John||

    CONT

    Allowing 15 year olds to buy this is the government stepping and saying that parents no longer hold the authority over whether their kids take this stuff. The kids do. Why? Because the kids are able to lawfully consent and purchase this stuff on their own with no worries or even concerns of whether their parents consented or not. That is why the exceptionally moronic argument that "it is not the government's problem to control your kids" doesn't work. It is not about controlling yours or anyone else's kids. It is about at what age and over what matters does the government recognize the child's autonomy over the parents control.

    And that is why this is just an important issue. If the government can tell parents they can no longer control their kids consent over this, what can't they tell them? You don't want your kid going doing the mandatory public service at his school? Fuck you he consented to it and wants to go. You no longer have the authority to override his consent. You see where this goes?

  • Zeb||

    I still want to know how you figure that all of the arguments you are making don't apply to everything else that is for sale in the world. Why don't parents get a say in all of those things if it is so essential that parents be able to control what their kids ingest or are exposed to? Is the fact that kids can generally go into a store and buy some candy and a soda by themselves also government taking away parental control? If not, how does that differ in terms of parental rights?

  • John||

    The do Zeb. And if people decided that no kid could by a candy bar without permission of their parents, they could do that. It is just that candy bars are not important enough to demand proof of the parents consent but things like abortion and booze are.

    And see my point below. If parental consent is so bad in this context, then isn't the parental consent requirement for medical care just as bad? And further, if the state is free to say that the child's consent overrides or stands alone from the parents' then why isn't the result things like the service project example I give above?

    At that point if the kid says "yes I want to do it", where does the parent have any authority to say no? The kid's consent is valid isn't it?

  • some guy||

    It is just that candy bars are not important enough to demand proof of the parents consent but things like abortion ... are.

    John, if you're mature enough to have a baby then you are mature enough to have an abortion. Children aren't slaves.

  • John||

    Then your issue is with the age of consent not parental authority. As of right now, a 15 year old is not old enough to legally consent to sex.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    So if two 15 year olds have sex, they should be prosecuted?

  • John||

    No. Neither one of them have the capacity to consent, thus neither one has the capacity to commit the crime of statutory rape. The lack of capacity argument works both ways. If I don't have the capacity to consent to sex, then my having sex with you is not "legally" an intentional act. Thus, only adults are guilty of statutory rape.

    That becomes a bit problematic with forcible rape. But in that case it is not the sex I am intending but the violence.

  • John||

    And one more thing. I assume everyone of you who are so upset about this, is equally upset by the fact that parents must consent to medical treatment of their kids. Right? That is just as bad isn't it? How dare people expect hospitals and doctors to raise their kids.

    But somehow that has never been much of an issue with Libertarians. That couldn't be because, unlike abortion, it doesn't implicate the KULTURE war and cause some of you to lose your minds and stop thinking clearly. Never.

  • ||

    Actually, I think it's because for the most part people here don't talk much about kid lib issues, and tend to be conservative on them. I think it has less to do with KULTUR WAR and more to do with the fact that a lot of people here are fairly traditional parents with fairly traditional conceptions of parental "rights."

    But believe you me, I'm equally upset about all of it.

  • John||

    Actually I believe you are. But others I have my doubts about. The sanctity of family and parental rights is a pretty big libertarian premise. And indeed, people on here generally get really pissed off about the government or schools whoever giving people's kids things without their parents' consent.

    No question, if some school sent off a bunch of students to progressive diversity work camp without ever informing or getting the parents' consent, people would be pissed. And the reason they would be pissed is that they understand that the parents get the final say on that not the kids.

    But change the context to abortion with all of its culture war implications and all that goes out the window. Then it is how dare anyone infringe on the rights of a child or expect the government to raise their kids.

  • Taggart||

    "No question, if some school sent off a bunch of students to progressive diversity work camp without ever informing or getting the parents' consent, people would be pissed."

    Well, I'm pretty sure if some school force fed kids Plan B, anyone here on this board would be pissed too. But we're not talking about forcing teenagers to do anything. No force is involved. Only free will. And if your teen is having sex and using unreliable birth control and getting pregnant and buying Plan B without you having any idea of any of it - well, you have parent/child relationship issues the state simply cannot solve for you.

  • John||

    This is actually one of the times you benefit from Hit and Run. I had never fully thought through the issue why affirmative parental consent is so important until now. It took me a few posts to work through it. But it really is a question of consent. It is the same reason parents have to sign a consent form before a child has surgery. The parents, not the child has the authority to made medical decision, and thus the kid can't consent.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I had never fully thought through the issue

    You still haven't.

    You have created an arbitrary dividing line, because abortion, even though Plan B isn't abortion.

  • John||

    How is my dividing line arbitrary? I am saying parents have the right to control what their kids do until they are adults. That is because to say otherwise is to deny parents the freedom to raise their children as they see fit, which is about as fundamental of a right as you can get. I am willing to quibble about what age those rights end, but I am not going to compromise on those rights.

    That is my position. What is yours other than stating the obvious that some kids mature faster than others? Well so what? Not all results are optimal. We don't worry about that when fundamental rights are involved. Or is it the case that you don't recognize a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    You can make whatever rules you like for your children. You cannot force me, or the government, to abide by them.

    I call it "arbitrary" because it fucking is. You keep using the "medical decision" argument by going straight to surgery. You skip a few steps, though. Can a 15 year old buy Advil without parental consent? Zyrtec? Immodium?

    If surgery was so safe that you could buy it on the shelf at Walmart, then yes I would also argue that 15 year olds should be able to buy it (nanobites!). Further, if a 15 year old needs an appendectomy, but the parents forbid it, then hell fucking yes I believe that the 15 year old should be able to give consent. Even further, if a 15 year old wants breast implants, and can pay for them, I'm fine with it. If you can't talk your daughter out of it, your parental skills are shitty anyway, and your decisions by proxy are not to be trusted.

  • John||

    That is the dumbest reply all thread. Who cares how dangerous surgery is, that is not he point. Just admit it, rights matter right up until people you don't like use them.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    It's cute how you focus on one sentence and ignore the rest of the argument. Should a 15 year old who needs an appendectomy be able to get one without parental consent?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Just admit it, rights matter right up until people you don't like use them.

    Like teenagers? Once again, projection.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    And even so, no matter what age you put on it, parental consent is not required. All you need is an older sibling or cousin, or a classmate who was born a few months sooner than you were, or a hippie aunt, or whatever.

    All an age requirement does is add another layer of shame. And you accuse me of KULTURE WAR?

  • John||

    If you would stop worrying so much about the possibility that some parent somewhere might do something you don't like, you would understand this issue a lot better.

  • John||

    And the fact that it is abortion has nothing to do with the position. It is the fact that it is a powerful drug. This is no different than requiring parental consent for surgery.

    Let the KULTURE war go. Not everything is about the KULTURE WAR. And sometimes principles prevent you from being able to stick it to the dreaded fundies.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Let the KULTURE war go. Not everything is about the KULTURE WAR.

    This is some IMAX-level projection.

  • John||

    Sorry you can't come up with a response and are too stupid and bullheaded to just admit so.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    There's a response a few comments up. You don't have to like it or agree, but it's there.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    It is the fact that it is a powerful drug.

    Oh wait.

    I reviewed and thoughtfully considered the data, clinical information, and analysis provided by CDER, and I agree with the Center that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.

    "Powerful" is not "unsafe." You are inserting your opinion of "powerful" into the argument, even though the drug has been called safe by science. All drugs are "powerful" or else they wouldn't be drugs. It's the difference between Orlistat and Raspberry Ketones.

  • Taggart||

    There's a difference between SOMEONE ELSE doing something to your child and your child choosing to do something to his or herself.

    Now, I myself wouldn't be upset if they restricted purchases to age 18 and up, either. But I'm not an out-and-out libertarian. Kids are one of the many things that muddy the libertarian waters and make it seem like an inssufficient, overall philosophy to me. And that, I think, above all else, is why liberetarians avoid kid lib issues for the most part. But the only reason this is an issue is because they made it over-the-counter. The issue isn't really kids buying and consuming things without parental permission - they do that ALL the time. The real issue is, given that we DO have government restrictions on medicine (want them or not), whether Plan B should be made a mere consumption product, or whether it should instead be treated as a medical treatement. Why is Plan B given different treatment than the birth control pill? Than 3% topical hydrocortizone? Than Singulair? The real story here is why some medicines are over the counter and others aren't, and how medical lobbies and politics come to play in all that.

  • some guy||

    God dammit. Why does every topic remotely related to abortion end up with hundreds of comments? We weren't even really on topic this time...

  • Taggart||

    They'll make this over-the-counter but insist we get a presecription for the birth control pill, which has been around long enough to prove it's efficacy and safety? But of course the AMA insists on a prescription for the birth control pill. Why else would someone who has been in a monogamous relationship with the same monogamous man from age 18 to 40 bother to pay to be probed by the GYN every stinking year, unless she HAD to, to get her script?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement