Tuesday July 26, 2016
Jump to content
I am no great fan of Barack Obama, but one thing I have strongly agreed with him on is his battle with the FDA, which wants young girls of any age to have access to over-the-counter morning after pills.
The reasons are obvious: For one thing, it would promote even more promiscuity in sub teens than we already have. For another, parents have every right to control what pills of any kind their children take. And finally, we have enough babies born and doomed who are doomed to grow up in foster homes with little chance of having a normal, happy life.
Now comes some %$#@! federal judge who has ruled that we have to let kids of any age have the pills. Edward Korman of U.S. District Court (the NY Times didn't say which one), ruled the government’s refusal to lift restrictions on access to the pill was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
Right, it is definitely, positively, and unquestionably arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable to do anything that lets parents control their kids.
Don't believe it? Just listen to what Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which initiated the lawsuit on the morning-after pill in 2005, has to say: “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States."
I wonder? At what age does she think girls become women?
21? 18? 16? 12? 8? 6? at birth?
But there's a fly in the ointment.
Will Obama have the ruling taken to a higher court?
Back in 2011 when his own Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, ruled against the FDA when it wanted to let anyone buy the pills, he said, "As the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine."
He has 30 days from the 6th of April to appeal the ruling.
Will he do it?
Place your vote here.
C'mon. I really want to know what you think.
Will Obama stand by what he said before and appeal the ruling, or will he let kids have access to the morning after pill?
And if you feel like saying why, why?
Obama will probably let the judges decision stand. I feel that parents should be aware when a youngster intends to take the pill. However, I wouldn't like to see it made illegal. I've heard too many tragic stories about attempted abortions by charlatan medics.
Congress didn't make it illegal. It simply said that anyone under 17 could not buy it over the counter. The law was passed with the overwhelming support of the nation, both on the left and the right. It was parents who were speaking, of course. The morning after pill was made available to all women 18 and over, but a prescription was required for anyone under 18. Then the same dingie judge who made this ruling lowered the age to 17.
In 2005 an international organization named the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit asking that the requirement that there be a prescription for children be done away with entirely. A federal judge turned it down, but a well known leftist judge, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York, ruled in 2009 that children of any age had to be allowed to buy the pill, with or without a prescription.
However, even though the FDA, under pressure from far-left women's rights groups and drug companies, wanted to approve the pill for sale to children, President Obama's own Secretary of Health and Welfare reversed the decision, saying there was absolutely no scientific evidence that it was safe for young children. A look at the literature shows that to be true; all evidence is negative, meaning there is no proof as yet either way.
In 2011, during his election campaign, Obama made the statement I have already quoted, namely that as a parent of two young girls he believed it was important to apply common sense when it came to selling children medications over the counter.
The question that is really being asked here, though, is whether or not parents have any rights when it comes to the raising of their female minor children. If they do, then they have a right to demand that the decision to buy and use any medication is theirs. If they have no right to make that decision, what rights do they have? None?
The problem right now is that if Obama does not tell the Justice Department to go forward with the lawsuit, then another one will have to be started up the chain of courts. Who will do it? Will it be done in time to prevent the obvious?
The drug is very powerful. Used by a youngster who would not be willing to reveal to her parents what she had done if she became ill, it is impossible to predict the result. And what eleven year old, after all, has the common sense to make such decisions? In particular, the decision that got her pregnant in the first place?
This could very well be a landmark case regarding parental rights. It could settle once and for all the question of whether or not the words "inalienable rights" include the right of parents to make decisions in the rearing of their own children or whether the state will take over even that aspect of our lives.
Answer to title of string:
2 May 2013:
Late Wednesday, the Obama administration recommitted itself to a position the President took during his re-election campaign that younger teens should not have unabated access to emergency contraceptives. The Justice Department filed an appeal to an order by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York that allowed girls of any age to buy not only Plan B but its cheaper generic competition as easily as they can buy an ice cream cone.
Korman gave the FDA 30 days to comply, and the deadline (next Monday) was fast approaching. In its filing, the Justice Department said that Korman exceeded his authority and should have sent the ruling back for reconsideration.
What about the White House? (next post)
White House officials insisted Wednesday that the FDA and the Justice Department were acting independently of the White House in deciding how to proceed.
Some people are unhappy about the situation.
Susannah Baruch, Interim President & CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said "We are profoundly disappointed. This appeal takes away the promise of all women having timely access to emergency contraception."
"It is especially troubling in light of the Food and Drug Administration's move yesterday to continue age restrictions and ID requirements, despite a court order to make emergency contraception accessible for women of all ages. Both announcements, particularly in tandem, highlight the administration's corner-cutting on women's health," Baruch said. "It's a sad day for women's health when politics prevails."
Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, said, "The prevention of unwanted pregnancy, particularly in adolescents, should not be obstructed by politicians." She adds that it is a "step backwards for women's health."
Dr. Cora Breuner of the American Academy of Pediatrics said, "We still have the major issue, which is our teen pregnancy rate is still too high."
Some people, however, were not unhappy about the situation.
Referring to the original FDA move to lower the age limits for Plan B, Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council said, "This decision undermines the right of parents to make important health decisions for their young daughters."
That would be my position. The way I figure it if parents don't have an inalienable right to control the sexual activity and medical treatment of their below-age children, who does?
I might also ask this: If the State of Arizona has the power to make laws saying at what age a child may smoke, and has the authority to fine and imprison parents who break those laws, where does the federal government get the power to change all that any time it wants, which it certainly must have if it can direct the sale of something far more important a litte nicotine.
Or is possible that the FDA only has the authority to say what medicines are safe to use and cannot enforce the availability of such medicines to anyone, anywhere, regardless of age, or its sale by anyone, anywhere, for any reason? Could it be that determining if something is "safe" to use is not the same as being able to dictate that it must be made available over the counter?
Could it be that no matter which way this case goes the states retain the power to ban the sale of any substance based on simple "parental authority," thereby leaving the final word up to parents--where it should be?
No female of any age should take any kind of birth control without first having a complete medical checkup !!
Pat, Should they have a complete medical checkup before having sex as well?
I wonder? There has to be a line between parental authority and the duty of the government to look after the best interests of a child (or anyone else). In a case like this, where do we draw the line?
This is a BIG deal. This case is critically important. There has to be a line beyond which the government cannot go in monitoring parental rights where moral and medical questions are involved. We either make a stand on this issue or we may as well go into the nearest federal office, have them tattoo the number on our shoulders, and start learning how to do the DC Salute. Either parents have rights or they don't. I say they do, and I ask you to consider where it will end if we let the government say they don't.
This case has all the elements needed for a landmark case. It involves age, moral behavior, profit taking from the sale of an expensive substance, medical science, and an area which has been one of unquestioned parental authority throughout all of history.
Consider what it means if it is decided in favor of a woman's "right" to choose her own medical care at any age. Certainly that will also have to apply to a male as well; we have to have equal rights. So that would mean the case would apply to all children of either sex and at any age. And since "any age" is ANY age, and the strictest moral stricture on the planet is involved, what medical or moral parental authority will be left?
Anybody know how to spell "none?"
Posting comments requires a free account