On March 23, the Associated Press reported that in a controversial court decision, a federal judge in New York ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the sale of the Plan B morning-after contraceptive to women 17 years and older without a prescription.
A morning after
On March 23, the Associated Press reported that in a controversial court decision, a federal judge in New York ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the sale of the Plan B morning-after contraceptive to women 17 years and older without a prescription.
The lawsuit—Tummino v. von Eschenbach—asked that Plan B be made available for all women, including “young women who might benefit most from this form of contraception,” according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. After passing the lawsuit, the Court gave the FDA 30 days to make Plan B available over the counter to 17-year-olds. Currently, the pill is only available to those 18 years and older.
Now, this seems like a very progressive move. A move that has finally ended the battle between what the Bush administration wanted and the reality of what teenagers do. In addition to the Oregon law passing, which allowed girls to get an abortion without parental consent, now girls can finally get an emergency contraception that can keep them pregnancy free (if that is what they choose) at the age of 17. This sounds great, but as far as I know, the legal age of consent in Oregon is 18, not 17. So wouldn’t that mean they would be breaking the law, and so would the over-the-counter drug store who sells the pill to them? The average age of consent in the United States may be 16, but how can a 17-year-old girl from Portland be allowed to have access to the morning-after pill without breaking the law? There needs to be some sort of solution to this conundrum.
Meanwhile, this is still a smart decision. According to new government data released last week by USA Today, birth rates for teenagers aged 15 to 19 have risen. If that is not enough to confirm the legitimacy of the court decision, recent pregnancies of famous teens such as Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin have definitely put underage sex in the spotlight, along with its consequences. Allowing 17-year-old girls access to the morning-after pill is one step closer to giving them what they deserve—safety and choice.
Pro-life groups may be upset by the ruling because it gives unrestricted access to a drug that can be labeled as “producing abortion” by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus, but I think taking a pill the morning after having sex does not guarantee the egg has even been fertilized—therefore it is not an abortion. Besides, a woman should have access to a pill that is effective and can prevent more problems, if she believes childbirth is one.
If the average age of consent in the United States is 16, why should you have to wait two years to reduce the risk of pregnancy? It should be a no-brainer to agree that this will help fight against unwanted teen pregnancies.
