For John, BLUF: should 14 year olds be able to purchase the morning after pill over the counter, on their own? Nothing to see here; just move along.
Blogger and Law Professor Ann Althouse copies a headline from Salon—'"Judge rips Obama’s right-wing Plan B stance."'. I link to the Althouse version for the comments, which I haven't read in this case, but are always good. Also, she extracts the key passages, from a Law Professor's point of view.
While I haven't reviewed the tape from last evening's City Council meeting, but perhaps this comment from District Court Judge Edward Korman sheds new light on Councillor Elliot's motion and the Left in Lowell response:
He also accused the administration of hypocrisy for opposing voter ID laws but being engaged in the “suppression of the rights of women” with the ID requirement for the drug....The flip side of making Plan B freely available to young women is that if they are under 16 there is always the question of if it related to statutory rape (sexual intercourse with someone under the age of consent). Should we not be investigating such cases of sexual assault? If not, should we then change the laws, since the mores of our society have evolved?
Regards — Cliff
14 comments:
Statutory rape? You're honestly going to offer the possibility of someone having been statutorily raped as a point of argument, either in restriction of access to medication, or in expansion (or, as I read your agenda, restriction) of freedom to fornicate?
The judge's point is a fair one--requiring ID is an active step to restrict rights--something that the left decries in the case of voting, and the right decries in the case of almost everything elemental to human sexuality.
Let's say a 14 year old is statutorily, or, even, unequivocally raped. Let's say she chooses to access Plan B contraception to deal with some of the possible consequences. Is the public's interest in prosecuting her rapist ahead or behind her right to personal autonomy?
I would opine, even respecting your implied support for laws that protect minors from sexual exploitation, that this all should have nothing to do with the issue of autonomous access to medication. It may be convenient to want to exploit the coincidence, but it would be wrong.
I don't think children under the age of majority have a "right to autonomy."
What if the child was having sex with a teacher? Is there not a public interest that supercedes in that instance?
Finally, every bottle of medicine from the most potent narcotic to aspirin has the warning:"Keep away from children." I'll bet that's on the label due to some FDA statute. How do we square that with allowing 12 year old girls unsupervised access to medication?
This is a tough set of issues. Part of the reason for wanting to trigger the involvement of an adult is the possibility the perp may be engaged in a series of such sexual crimes. As noted by Kad, 16 may not be the proper trigger point for Statatory Rape. But, if not 16, what about 14 or 12? And what about forced rape?
But, for me, if we are going to say Sally can buy this on her own, why can't Sally take aspirin to school in her purse or backpack? Should not our laws be in some harmony?
I get the point about people being free to make their own choices, but we as a society have a fair number of restrictions on younger people. The human brain doesn't fully mature until age 23 or 24. No booze and guns until 21. No driving until 16. Restrictions on driving up to 18. Parental permission to enlist for young folks.
While I abhore abortion, I am not arguing against Plan B as Plan B. It is not like the current case in Philly, with viable babies being aborted and with live births being allowed to die on a table. Plan B fits into the US consensus regarding abortion. The Administration doesn't see that consensus.
All that said, the thing that attracted me to this is the lack of balance on the part of the Administration, as noted by the Judge. The Judge was pretty sarcastic.
Regards — Cliff
"I don't think children under the age of majority have a 'right to autonomy.'"
This is absurd. Of course they have a right to autonomy. You don't have the right to force a child into an abortion, do you? If that's not a statement about autonomy, I don't know what is.
The question is, how much autonomy?
Regards — Cliff
".... why can't Sally take aspirin to school in her purse or backpack?"
Isn't eh question "why can't Sally take aspirin (full stop)?"
Of course we all accept Sally can take aspirin, and that 'to school' isn't salient to the issue here. After all, we're not asking about if Sally can do X at school.
"Plan B fits into the US consensus regarding abortion."
What do you mean by this? I'm not sure I understand what this asserts.
"...but we as a society have a fair number of restrictions on younger people."
Generally, our restrictions have limits - that is there are considerations of autonomy where restrictions conflict with our notions of autonomous freedoms. Medical care is one of those things. Different ages are different with regard to being able to understand and consent. The question here is this, are we talking about an age group that is able to understand and consent? If we are, what is the justification for restricting medical autonomy? We should default to autonomy in medical care and have to justify devation from that principal.
Disagree re aspirin to school. It is about her autonomy. Do we restrict teachers in a like manner? But on to other issues.
I am guessing about 85% believe abortion should be legal and about 85% believe it should be legal. In there is a consensus which would cover Plan B.
OK, so why is the Adminstration arguing the way it is? That said, is a 15 year old fully away of the physical (probably limited) and psychogical (probably not so limited for some) consequences of an abortion?
I take it Chris and Kad think the Administration is wrong in this case. Anon not so much. I am rolling over a blog post (based on someone else's writing) on the value of High School. Perhaps autonomy should begin earlier. It might make it easier to fill the rank and file in case we get into another war. What is the cutoff age for signing up?
Regards — Cliff
Autonomy in school and autonomy in general are two different things. It's not enough to use the specific case to assert a prescription for the general case. That's a sort of fallacy of composition.
Plan B has been shown to be not abortive. Now people can have a differing opinion on that but that doesn't make it medically correct. Remember also that our collective beliefs on medical facts aren't determinant here - the actual facts are.
" so why is the Adminstration arguing the way it is? "
Because they don't want the fight and/or he erroneously believes is position.
"Perhaps autonomy should begin earlier."
Autonomy absolutely incontrovertibly starts earlier. Not absolute autonomy, but autonomy. See my forced abortion example above, which I assume is uncontroversial here.
The point here is that its a medical decision. The facts about safety and the ability to have informed consent are the operative points here.
So Chris says:
"Autonomy in school and autonomy in general are two different things. It's not enough to use the specific case to assert a prescription for the general case. That's a sort of fallacy of composition."
I don't accept that as stated. At the practical level schools are becoming "rights free" zones in the US. For example, at the college and university level the accused in certain actions is no longer able to avail himself (or herself) of normal Constitutional Rights. It is almost as though the entrances have signs over them saying Arbeit Macht Frei. This is not a good situation.
Regards — Cliff
I would hold the right to privacy above public interest in dictating behavior, with the necessary test being potential harm to another. As Plan B is not an abortifacient, and thus absent of potential harm to another, the State needs to be limited in its power to invalidate an autonomous individual's right to privacy.
Here, then, becomes raised the interesting and important question of when an age of majority might be reached in order to gain the autonomous rights of an individual ahead of the interests of certain others. (Perhaps of parents interested in controlling the sexual behavior of their children, or the State in protecting others from the torts of pedophiles).
On the one hand, Cliff suggests at least some portion of the autonomous rights of an individual must be respected upon their conception. On the other, there is some dithering that there ought to be an age test to enjoy more of the rest. The inconsistency rankles, but it's not a question to be dismissed out of hand.
My belief is that women, considered or de facto girls or not, who are of an age to become pregnant, must be respected to be of an age to control the circumstances of their potential pregnancy. State by state and beneath a seemly age we choose to hold their impregnators feloniously responsible for their part in that pregnancy. But this should not and cannot override our respect for the individual potentially bearing the results of that impregnation. It's none of our business if she with or without her family chooses Plan B or any other plan. We may have an interest in education and influence, but this cannot overstep the bounds of force required otherwise.
If I can force my daughter to get a vaccine or even an IUD, why can't I force her to have abortion?
Currently the government encourage parents to vaccinate or get effective birth control in which the daughter can not remove on her own, with out my permission.
I also make my kids brush their teeth and change their underwear.
"For example, at the college and university level the accused in certain actions is no longer able to avail himself (or herself) of normal Constitutional Rights."
Got an example of this? Absent examples I'm not sure I can accept this as a data point.
"At the practical level schools are becoming "rights free" zones in the US."
As a practical matter, we expect schools to accept certain responsibilities and liabilities and as such, have to manage their own spaces in ways they see fit in order to continue in their mission. If you have specific examples of what you're talking about maybe you can talk me into what you're thinking, but because having the school responsible for controlling their own space is an issue, they assert that control necessarily against autonomy. In a similar way, courthouses restrict carried weapons - even the legal constitutionally protected kind. They do this for fairly obvious reasons. The question with regard to schools is this - what are their reasons and what infringements to autonomy are we talking about? (hence the need for specifics)
Simply put, the autonomy one can assert is necessarily contextual in nature. General rules abound but contexts (such as inside schools or inside courtrooms) add to this. The question at hand isn't the access to Plan B in schools or in courtrooms but generally. That's why it seems to me that the school context, being a particular context, is a bad data-point to support a generalistic context.
"...why can't I force her to have abortion?"
That's the question... can you? Is there an example of this on a child that was otherwise reasonably able to have informed consent that wasn't considered a violation of personal autonomy and bodily rights?
A little graphic, but a personal story of a 17 year old's abortion. She is an older woman now.
" She looked right at me and said, “If you are pregnant, you are out of this house you know.”
Pretty graphic story... so I won't quote anything else.
So it wasn't a gun to the girl's head, but homelessness.
Force isn't physical, it could be coerced in some form.
Post a Comment