17 Year-old Girls are now Adults According to the FDA.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/22/plan.b.age/index.html

The Honorable U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York today ruled that the FDA must make the "morning after" drug (Plan B or Levonorgestrel) available as an over-the-counter medication to17 year-old girls.

In making this decision, the judge determined that the FDA had failed to follow it's own guidelines and rules with respect to this drug and the intention to make it an OTC drug for women 18-years of age or older.

While I can understand how the judge came to the conclusion concerning the enforcement of FDA rule consistency, I completely fail to understand how the judge can be so blind as to the enormous moral and social implications that this decision will result in.

Essentially, what the U.S. District Court has done is make it significantly easier for a child, who is the responsibility of a legal parent-guardian, to engage in illicit sexual activity, which is clearly considered a "mature" or "adult" act and to hide this activity from her parents. In other words, by order of the courts, U.S. parents are yet one more step removed from being able to legally supervise or monitor the behavior of their legal wards.

In his opinion, Judge Korman cited that since the FDA had research that concluded that a 17 year-old can use "Plan B" without danger of serious side effects, and in fact the FDA had solicited an application from the drug's manufacturer to apply for a permit to sell the drug OTC to 17 year-olds, then the FDA's current rules with regard of the availability of "Plan B" to 17 year-old girls was "inconsistent" with it's own findings. This is certainly technically correct.

But technicalities are only one side of this issue. What about the social, moral and cultural implications?

Essentially, within the narrow scope of his ruling, the Honorable Judge Korman has essentially made the 17 year-old independent of her parent's or legal guardian's wishes concerning her sexual behavior by making it possible for her to buy "morning after" pills without their consent or knowledge.

Doesn't this make the 17 year-old an adult? Isn't the decision to perform the sexual act and accept the risk all the consequences thereof primarily an adult decision? Doesn't this relieve the parents of their responsibility of their wayward child in this regard? And if so, why do we continue to employ a legal double standard? How come a 12 year old child has to pay adult prices to go see a movie at the theater but cannot drive a car? How come a 16 year old child can be trusted with driving a 3,000 thousand pound car but not smoke a cigarette? How come an 18 year old can be trusted to serve the United States armed services but they can't enjoy an alcoholic beverage? How is it that a judge can permit a 17 year old to buy "morning after" pills because she is having sex but she cannot enter into a legal and binding contract?

If the government isn't going to allow me to be responsible for raising my child, and requiring society to help me to keep my child accountable (like pharmacists who provide birth-control to minors), then please please please allow my child to become an adult at 17 or 16 and be done with it.

(1) http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf