.jpg)
The Morning After Pill - Should Your Teen Need Your Permission?
Categories: Teens & tweens, Love & Sex, Pregnancy & Birth, Health & Safety, In The News
Do you think your 17-year-old daughter should be able to take the morning after pill without your knowledge or consent? How about without a doctor's visit or even a prescription?
Well, last week, a New York District Judge ordered the FDA to lower the age of prescription and consent-free access to the morning after pill from 18 to 17 years of age. But Judge Korman isn't satisfied. He wants the morning after pill to be available (without consent or prescription) to all girls, regardless of age, and is pushing the FDA to do just that.
In my view, the decision to make Plan B available over the counter to girls is wrong on many fronts. The morning after pill is not an aspirin! There can be serious side affects such as nausea, cramping and even bleeding – not to mention the mental strain of taking a high dosage of hormones. Without a prescription, many teens will endure these symptoms alone, without the guidance or support of a doctor or parent. This is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk.
Without a prescription, sexually active girls will also bypass potentially life-saving STD screening tests. In addition, Plan B's over-the-counter status makes it especially attractive to sexual predators who may coerce young girls to take it, the same way many of them force their young victims into abortions.
As a mom, the most troubling problem with this decision is that it undermines my ability to parent my child and just at a time when teachers, politicians, and the president himself are pleading for parents to take more responsibility for their kids and their social lives.
Why wouldn't the government want parents involved in the medical matters of their children? Do they not want young girls to seek their parents' counsel when they find themselves in a difficult situation? I presume that advocates of this decision are worried that some girls may be afraid to tell their parents. But as parents we understand that our children will, at one time or another, do things we are not particularly happy with or proud of – and that may involve discovering that our child is sexually active. Yet, as parents, we need to know these things so we can counsel and love our children through these circumstances according to our family's values. That's our job!
For parents who want to parent, this ruling is yet another government intrusion on the parent-child relationship, Sadly, it will only encourage girls to bypass mom and dad when they need them most.
Recent Posts
- Reviews: What's New This Week (11/20/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (11/20/2009)
- Diabetic Student Wins Fight For Extra Gym Classes (11/20/2009)
- Suri Cruise Stumbles in Her High Heels (11/20/2009)
- Sports Traditions as Important During Holidays as Turkey, Gifts Under the Tree (11/20/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
ame s 3-31-2009 @ 4:45PM
I'm torn on this one, probably because I have 2 daughters.
On the one hand, I think it should be available,no questions asked. On the other hand, I would want to know if one of my daughters had unprotected sex and felt she needed the morning after pill.
Many call it an "abortion pill", which it is not. It prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
I took it once and had no problem with side effects.
Reply
Melissa 3-31-2009 @ 6:00PM
I agree with you, I am torn because I have a daughter, too....I would definitely want her to come to me with this, or better yet, come to me BEFORE she has sex so I could talk to her about birth control and condoms and such....yet, there are some parents who would like to think their teen is an abstinent angel, and would blow a top if they found out otherwise, which could put a teen at risk. And I took it once also, no major side effects, I cramped a little more than usual and that was it.
Sandyone 3-31-2009 @ 10:52PM
It's only 'not an abortion' because the definition of 'pregnancy' was changed about 40some years ago.
I would bet that most people who are opposed to abortion at any stage don't know that 'pregnancy' is now defined as not starting until implantation. Most of them believe that life begins at conception. Plan B can work in a way to cause the end of the life of this tiny product of conception. (that means abortion)
It doesn't always work that way, but sometimes it does. That's important to people would not use Plan B if it caused an abortion. To say that it doesn't cause an abortion is being intellectually dishonest.
H 4-03-2009 @ 1:52PM
Actually, the true definition of an abortion is any device that interrupts a pregnancy after fertilization. Remember, the Hyppocratic Oath used to say cause no harm from conception to death...
But that political argument aside, take the moral arguements out of this, and there are some good moral arguments, it is pretty scary to think teens as young as 17 could get this medication without a prescription. It is a large dose of hormones that could cause short and long term complications, especially if it is utlized more than once. I can envision young women puting themselves in precarious situations several times and then taking this medication just to be safe... It is better for them if it is prescribed by a medical professional who would clearly lay out the benefits and drawbacks.
kdsellshomes 4-08-2009 @ 3:19PM
I have a 17 year old daughter. I read her journal one day, and found out she had taken those pills. A teacher had made the appointment, my niece took her! I had to READ about it!! I was freaked out because the journal didn't specify what pills she had taken, but when we talked about it, she came clean right away. I don't like what happened or the way she went about it, but, I am glad those "pills" were there. I am way too young to be a gramma! The best advice I can give is have the "openest" relationship with your children. It is uncomfortable at first, but I would rather know than not. Please don't be one of those parents who think their child would never do that! Guess what? They do!
penny 3-31-2009 @ 6:44PM
I'm with you two, I don't know what to think. On one hand after watching someone under 18 have to hide a pregnancy and terminate it alone I think it should given to any age. As a mother of 2 daughters I'm terrified that she will not talk with me about the issues in her life and what may be going on with her sex life (ouch that hurt to say).
I understand where Rachel is coming from, and the values she is trying to instill in her children, I just don't know if I want to make it harder for those girls who's parents are completely out of touch with the reality of their kids lives.
On a great note this article widened the lines of communication with all of my children, both the boys and the girls.
Reply
Lisa 3-31-2009 @ 6:57PM
I think it should be available. As a teenager I was brought up by parents who didn't explain anything to me, my mother NEVER took me to a gynecologist. Sex was completely taboo in our house..but yet when I was 16 I was allowed to have a 21 yr old bf had a midnight curfew and was often alone at his apartment. Having no guidance naturally I had sex. I was lucky and had a boyfriend who knew to use protection and helped me obtain birth control. I can't help but think about those poor girls who have parents like mine who are totally checked out from their children's lives and are prone to flipping out when something goes wrong (it might interfere with their lives). I understand Rachel's point of view but not everyone has parents like her, and we shouldn't withhold something as basic as the morning after pill, just because it might undermine parents in general, how else are we supposed to protect the ones who don't have caring parents?
Reply
Claire 3-31-2009 @ 7:38PM
I completely disagree with the author.
In answer to her question: Do you think your 17-year-old daughter should be able to take the morning after pill without your knowledge or consent? How about without a doctor's visit or even a prescription?
Yes, absolutely. I was one of those kids who had (and still have today) an extremely close relationship with my parents, and yet I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I would rather have killed myself than have had to tell them that I had gotten pregnant as a teenager. I would have done anything to prevent disappointing them, as I was really the "perfect" child in their eyes--top grades, social, athletic, attractive--with purported open lines of communication to both mom and dad. I know that there are many who would be shocked by what I say, but I am clear on what I would have done as a teenager to keep my parents' unsullied image of their only child.
It is dangerously naive to think of this issue as just as simple as "counsel[ing] and lov[ing] our children through these circumstances according to our family's values." The last part of that sentence really bothers me. My parents were relatively open-minded individuals and yet I STILL felt this way. I shudder to think of what happens to the teen girls whose parents' values are vastly different and what their reactions would be to this situation.
Glorious 4-01-2009 @ 5:49PM
Claire, you "would've done anything to keep your parents unsullied view of me"? You would've killed yourself rather than tell them about being pregnant. That is creepily dysfunctional on so many levels. I can see how the article would bother you, quite a bit. You want to paint this picture of a great, almost perfect family, but would KILL YOURSELF before telling your parents you were pregnant. Wow. I had "perfect" parents too and could not discuss certain things with them either but being a black sheep and rebellious, well it didn't matter!
I hope this pill is healthy and won't cause girls any problems later on when they do want to have babies. It sounds like it is but I'm not sure about it being over-the-counter available like that. Simply not sure.
Sandyone 4-01-2009 @ 8:04PM
"just because it might undermine parents in general, how else are we supposed to protect the ones who don't have caring parents?"
By undermining parents, you are suddenly removing a helluva lot of protection from these girls.
By 'rescuing' these kids from their terrible, horrible parents, you are opening *my* children to more risk. How can you justify that?
Kirstie 3-31-2009 @ 7:34PM
It's not that the government doesn't want parents involved - they just don't want to penalize girls who don't have the luxury of involved parents. Some parents don't care; some parents will beat or kick out a child for this kind of thing.
Your daughters are incredibly lucky that they have parents who, though they will be unhappy with their childrens' decision, will love and counsel them through this decision. There are a lot of girls in this world who are not that lucky, and it is for girls like them that a provision of this nature is necessarily. For your girls, Rachel, this is a non-issue - you are raising your daughters to know that they can always come to you, and thus the need for secrecy and bypassing parental involvement is likely a moot point for your family.
Another caveat to this issue - in many, if not most, states, the age of consent is much lower then 18. The most common age is 16 years old; in some states it's even lower (for instance, in my home state of NJ, the age of consent begins at 13 provided the partner is no more then 4 years older). If a girl is legally old enough to be able to consent to sexual relations, shouldn't she be legally old enough to obtain any contraceptive she might need to protect herself?
Reply
Robin 4-03-2009 @ 9:25AM
The biggest problem with this is that these are drugs that have consequences. We live in a society that a school nurse is not even allowed to give a teenager a Tylenol without permission and you want to give them drugs that can have major side effects with no accountability? If the girl has complications and goes to the hospital If she is afraid or unconscious then major medical information needed to help her is withheld. My child was taken to the health department on put on Deporevera without my knowledge and it had major medical implications she almost died. Do you think the government nurse would have taken responsiblity for my daughters death. I don't think so. She said I would have to get a judge to issue a supeona just find out what my child was put on. How many girls are out there in trouble medically and nobody making these laws cares about that.
Kirstie 4-03-2009 @ 10:07AM
Robin, I'm so sorry that your daughter got sick from the Depo shot. It's a terrifying thing and I'm glad she is okay now.
However - isn't the bigger question why your daughter didn't feel she could come to you to discuss and get birth control? Why did she feel that she had to do it alone, and in secrecy? I've taken Plan B because of birth control failure, (although over the age of 18) and guess what? I STILL told my mom. I'm close enough to my mom that I was able to be honest with her and tell her what happened. If you've got an open relationship with your child, they wouldn't need to sneak around to get medications that can have serious repercussions for their health.
There are girls who DON'T have the kind of relationship with their mother that they can tell them something like this without fear - should we penalize those girls by preventing them from obtaining a contraceptive, and thus dooming them to either a nine-month pregnancy or an abortion?
I don't think the pill should be dispensed without any kind of counseling, even just from the pharmacist, so that girls know what they're getting in to. And if your child is getting BC from Planned Parenthood/a health clinic, they ARE counseled as to the possible side effects, made to discuss their health history, etc. It's not as if they give these pills out in goodie bags ..
A dad 3-31-2009 @ 9:00PM
Ms. Campos-Duffy has completely missed the point of this story. The FDA's role is to approve medicines that are shown to be safe and effective for indicated use. Their role is not to dictate social policy. Plan B, despite the noted side effects, was determined to be safe and effective and was deemed worthwhile as an over the counter drug. There is no data or indication that the effects are more serious for people under age 18. Therefore the FDA overstepped its bounds when it restricted this access to people under age 18. They only did so under pressure from the Bush administration. The judge ruled strictly on a matter of jurisdiction. Should particular states, localities, or even congress decide there is a social issue here, they would need to enact specific legislation on the topic.
Reply
Gunner 3-31-2009 @ 9:55PM
Everyone is thinking of this in a utopian fashion..meaning 'Consentual Sex'. Yes, the female in question didn't get counceling, or doctor's follow up care or STD screening.
But, at least they're not pregnant.
And that's the first step to perhaps not having to carry the child of someone who molested, or raped them. OR they're not going to get beaten, or thrown out by horribly strict parent/s who do not condone pre-marital sexual relations. OR sexual relations with the person they slept with.
Just because this drug is available, it's not going to turn our youth into a Generation of Tarty Street Walkers.
This is a really valuable Pro Choice Drug that should have been available a long time ago.
Besides, if there were better Sexual Education Programs available for our youths that covered Birth Control in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry so much about trying to keep them from having unwanted pregnancies. There was a recent study that said 12yr olds repordedly had more sex due to being exposed to listening to sexually explicit song lyrics and racey films. It wasn't because they knew how to use a condom, or about the morning after pill.
Reply
Katty 3-31-2009 @ 9:57PM
It doesn't really bother me that they lowered the age on the morning after pill. It is MY job as a parent to make sure that these new rules don't affect how I deal with my children.
It is MY job as a mother to make sure that my house is one where we are open and honest with each other and that if my daughter would need to take that sort of pill that I would be number 1 on her list to talk to. She's only 2 now, but I have 15 years to make sure that happens. I was able to be open with my mom and that made it easier for me to make good choices.
Unfortunately not everyone is that lucky. We have to remember that families are diffeent and these rules can help those that don't have involved parents.
Reply
EH 4-04-2009 @ 1:39PM
Perfectly said!
CommaMomma 3-31-2009 @ 11:23PM
I think Rachel is absolutely right about this. It defies logic that written permission from a parent is required for a minor to be given any medication except the morning-after pill, which can potentially have far more serious side effects and complications. This is government undermining the role of the parent.
Reply
Sifrina 3-31-2009 @ 11:28PM
Good topic. As a parent, I understand where you are coming from, but for a person who claims to be all about keeping government out of your private life/family raising, your position on this topic is not consistent with your previously stated views. You NOW want the government to help you as a parent, to actually INTRUDE on your children's lives/privacy, and protect/restrict them from their own freedoms, which is not consistent with a libertarian view.
You can't have it both ways. If you truly feel "it's a free country," and the government should stay out of these private family issues, then that includes your children, and you, as a parent, are always free to "regulate"your children. But don't ask the government to help regulate/restrict your children if you can't, and if you also openly despise government regulation. Raising your kids, after all, is YOUR job (not the government's; in your view) - so to be internally consistent with your own rejection of government involvement in parenting, don't come to the government for help on this, just raise your kids as you see fit. (Not my views AT ALL, by the way, but then I don't reject government "intrusion" as you call it). I think it's interesting how you and others seek out government involvement only when it's convenient/lucrative financially, or only when it's morally palatable. This is what we call "self serving."
On a similar note, I note the new (and somewhat disturbing) practice at the OB GYN office that allows teenagers (and grown ups) to sign a document requiring doctors to ONLY DISCUSS the patient's or teen's medical issues with the teen/patient (not the parent). I put down my husband as the person they could contact to discuss my medical issues with if I wasn't available; but most teens, the nurse explained, do not put down anyone because they don't want the parents to know anything. You know what I say to parents who get upset that their teen didn't put down their parents when signing the form - Why weren't you with your teen at the OB GYN appt with her to discuss this form and its potential consequences? Parents - time to get off your bums and actually chaperone your teen and be involved in their life!!!!
Reply
Sandyone 4-01-2009 @ 7:17AM
By that logic, the govt shouldn't make any laws against kidnapping of a minor, abuse of a minor, child labor, etc. I'm pretty sure that even the most libertarian parent appreciates at least some laws that protect children (I don't know any 'most libertarian parents' because parents tend to be less idealistic than libertarians). Perhaps the law regarding pharmaceuticals should just be consistent, and not make special allowances to undermine parental authority for drugs that have anything to do with s-e-x.
Rachel is not "for government intervention" in the case of abortion, as you seem to think. She is "against the killing of a child" and I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone thinks that the government should be involved in preventing the killing of already born children. It's only when the child resides inside the mother that we tell ourselves that it's just a blob or a woman's choice.
In a perfect world, we'd all be Libertarians. If we could count on people to do what's right, we wouldn't need any laws at all. Since we live on Planet Earth, we need laws. The laws should protect and preserve parental authority, not undermine and usurp it.