Hermenuetics

Comments

Because heaven knows girls under 18 wouldn't have sex without this pill being available, and as a result we have just thrust the vanguard of the new generation right into the fiery maw of hell. Really now, come on.

Posted By: Kirk | April 24, 2009 10:01 AM

America really need to catch up to Europe on openness of culture.

Posted By: Zwitter | April 24, 2009 10:02 AM

I can't believe people would disregard their childrens' safety like this!

Posted By: Jonathan Lockheed | April 24, 2009 10:02 AM

According to statutory rape laws that almost all the states have on the books: any one who is having sex with someone under the age of consent is participating in statutory rape. (http://www.sexlaws.org/what_is_statutory_rape) So if you have two teenagers who are both younger than 18 years (the age of consent in most states) and they have sexual intercourse, both of them are raping the other person.

The thing I do not get is that the government seems to be saying that it is ok to have sex under 18 because they are going to remove restrictions on a drug that is ONLY used when sexual intercourse has occurred. If you allow someone under the age of consent to pick up this drug without a doctor or pharmacist knowing, you are basically denying all the statutory rape laws. Even if the girl consents to sex, it is still illegal if she is not old enough.

I am fine with someone using birth control if a doctor or pharmacist knows they are taking it, but we shouldn't be putting it over the counter. To me, this seems like it is masking illegal activities...

Posted By: Derek Bailey | April 24, 2009 10:25 AM

Actually, according to your link, over half the states have adopted 16 as the "age of consent."

Posted By: Robyn | April 24, 2009 10:31 AM

Robyn:

Thanks for pointing that out, but all states are not the same size. Selecting the largest 9 states (over half of the US population) gave a median age of consent of 17.4 using information from this site:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

Posted By: Derek Bailey | April 24, 2009 10:49 AM

Derek, the average age of consent in the U.S. is 16 (not 18), and just about every state has Romeo and Juliet clauses which allow minors under the age of consent to engage in sex with one another if they are within, say, four years of one another (even if the AoC is 18). So in many states, it is legal for a 19 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, for example.

The thing I do not get is that the government seems to be saying that it is ok to have sex under 18 because they are going to remove restrictions on a drug that is ONLY used when sexual intercourse has occurred.

No, what they're doing is recognizing the fact that, even though it may be against the law, underage people still have sex. We refer to that as "reality." I know that's a foreign concept to you, but some of us actually live in that world.

You should be praising the effort to reduce unwanted children and abortions. You'd prefer to see underage girls actually get pregnant from it, though, right? Sort of like a punishment for having the audacity to have sex, maybe? Come on, admit it.

Posted By: Alexa | April 24, 2009 2:29 PM

That will take care of new problems before they start but, how about a pill to take care of one that has been living much beyond their prime?!

Posted By: Bubba Gump | April 24, 2009 2:49 PM

Derek,

Statutory Rape laws by state: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

I know that, at least here in Alabama, U.S., the statutory rape law is thus:

First-degree rape for someone age 16 or older to have sexual intercourse with someone under age 12.

It all depends on the age of the people involved.

Also, as Alexa pointed out, even though it might be against the law, underage people are still going to have sex. This is reality, and Emergency Contraception will help reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Posted By: Donna | April 24, 2009 4:05 PM

Alexa:

Why do you mock me? I am just trying to offer a view on the issue and you make fun of me and tell me I don't know what reality is. And no, I don't want more unwanted pregnancies or abortions, but I don't have any means to prevent that from happening.

Posted By: Derek Bailey | April 24, 2009 6:02 PM

Here are the key findings of FACT by the judge, after taking sworn evidence, about the FDA's (mis)handling of the matter. It would have been nice to see at least some of the judge's findings in this article.

"The FDA repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons and, on two occasions, only took action on Plan B to facilitate confirmation of Acting FDA Commissioners, whose confirmation hearings had been held up due to these repeated delays. The first occasion involved the confirmation of then-Acting FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford, who froze the review process for seven months in 2005. In order to overcome a hold that had been placed on his nomination by two Senators, the Secretary of Health and Human Services promised that the FDA would act on Plan B by September 2005. After Dr. Crawford was confirmed by the Senate in July 2005, however, he reneged on the promise and, instead, delayed action another eleven months to pursue, and then abandon, a rulemaking with respect to Plan B. There is also evidence that when the FDA finally decided to approve non-prescription use of Plan B for women 18 and older, it did so to facilitate the confirmation of Commissioner Crawford’s successor, then-Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach, whose confirmation certain Senators had vowed to block because of the continued delays on Plan B.

These political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned agency decision-making. Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA’s course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant 4 ways from the agency’s normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug product from prescription to non-prescription use, referred to as a “switch application” or an “over-the-counter switch.” For example, FDA upper management, including the Commissioner, wrested control over the decision-making on Plan B from staff that normally would issue the final decision on an over-the-counter switch application; the FDA’s denial of non-prescription access without age restriction went against the recommendation of a committee of experts it had empanelled to advise it on Plan B; and the Commissioner – at the behest of political actors – decided to deny non-prescription access to women 16 and younger before FDA scientific review staff had completed their reviews... [N]o useful purpose would be served by continuing to deprive 17 year olds access to Plan B without a prescription. Indeed, the record shows that FDA officials and staff both agreed that 17 years olds can use Plan B safely without a prescription. The FDA’s justification for this age restriction, that pharmacists would be unable to enforce the prescription requirement if the cutoff were age 17,
rather than 18, lacks all credibility."

http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/2005/05cv366mofinal.pdf

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | April 24, 2009 9:26 PM