Say Anything Blog

The Bismarck Tribune has a good summary of the implications of a recent federal ruling which allows minors to buy emergency contraception:

Seventeen-year-olds may now buy “morning after” pills without a prescription, the result of a action by an federal judge. The ruling bypasses a 17-year-old, a minor child, consulting with a physician and, practically speaking, the parents. It does so based on peculiar logic. ...

Judge Edward R. Korman from the Federal District Court of New York found the prescription requirement was driven by politics and not science. The Obama administration has chosen not to appeal.

According to the FDA, Plan B “acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may prevent the union of sperm and egg. If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.”

That doesn’t sound like politics, it sounds like science. Lawmakers and those who draw up government regulations nearly always apply political views and philosophy to science in enacting rules and laws. Science does not stand alone as a part of public policy.

Parents and 17-year-olds should talk about such things unprotected sex, abstinence and related issues.

Allowing use of Plan B for 18-year-olds without a prescription apparently has not affected the number of pregnancies by young women of this age group, and, therefore, it’s unlikely to do so for younger women. The issues that lead to teen pregnancy go well beyond availability of contraceptives and abortions. They’re issues that have stymied societies for as long as records have been kept, or longer. Issues that Plan B will not resolve.

I couldn’t agree more.

Let’s remember that at 17, parents are still legally responsible for their children.  And the emotional and moral responsibility parents have to their children extends far beyond that.  I doubt that any 17 year old kid wants to tell her parents that she needs an emergency contraceptive.  But that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have to confront them.  Allowing these kids to go around their parents prevents them from having to take responsibility for their actions.  And keeps parents from being able to guide their children through what is one of the scariest and tumultuous moments in their young lives.

What this represents is another move by government to remove parents from their children’s lives.  Already we see laws in states across the nation allowing children to seek abortions (euphemistically called “pre-natal care” in the laws themselves, as if that were the point) without their parent’s knowledge.  Now we’re allowing them to seek out contraceptive medications without their parents.

Which sets a dangerous precedent whereby we tell parents that their involvement in their children’s lives is less important.  Frankly, I don’t want to live in a society where parents aren’t responsible for their children.  I don’t want to live in a society where the government is the default parent.

This isn’t even really about abortion or pro-life vs. pro-choice.  This is about children not being enabled by the government to remove their parents from their lives.