SENATE BILL: Emergency Contraception Liberalization Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: sbane

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin detailing with substance what this is about.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ERROR: INVALID ENTY IN ADVOCACY FIELD - 00000000000000000000000000000000000


Obligatory motion to table.

Start talking or this motion will actually end up at vote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So no parental consent needed? I don't know about this...

[TNF]

So no parental consent needed? I don't know about this...

Why should parental consent be required?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Because the concept of 14 year olds taking any kind of medication without the parents knowing about it is dangerous to the kids, especially if they didn't bother to read the warning labels and what they could and could not take iwth it, eat with it or do within a certain period afterwards. At the very least they should know enough to not in some way unknowingly harm their child and then have to live with that for the rest of their lives because it was them who gave them whatever or had them do whatever.

[Gass3268]

So no parental consent needed? I don't know about this...

Why should parental consent be required?

Exactly, this is a good bill. 

[Napoleon]

Obviously, I will be supporting this.

[TNF]

Because the concept of 14 year olds taking any kind of medication without the parents knowing about it is dangerous to the kids, especially if they didn't bother to read the warning labels and what they could and could not take iwth it, eat with it or do within a certain period afterwards. At the very least they should know enough to not in some way unknowingly harm their child and then have to live with that for the rest of their lives because it was them who gave them whatever or had them do whatever.

14 years old is the age of consent in the Republic of Atlasia. In Atlasia you can buy pornography and have sex at age fourteen, but by your logic, you shouldn't be able to buy a Plan B pill? That's ass backwards, if you ask me. If we are going to recognize that fourteen year olds are old enough to have sex without parental permission, we also need to recognize that they are old enough to make responsible decisions, like purchasing and using the Plan B pill or any kind of emergency contraceptive, themselves as well.

More Federalist nanny-stating is all the opposition to this bill is.

[TNF]

More Federalist nanny-stating is all the opposition to this bill is.

Careful, TNF. A Federalist did introduce this, after all.

This bill has the support of the administration. We believe that the government ought not to prevent any sexually mature individual from obtaining contraception.

My bad. I'll be more specific: right-wing nanny-statism.

[Sbane]

I wrote this bill because it is precisely due to the need of parental or other adult consent needed to purchase the drug that many teenagers don't, leading to more grave consequences later on down the line. I still require a Pharmacist consultation so they can be counseled on how to take the drug and to go over the side effects. Also keep in mind that teenagers have access to a whole medley of drugs over the counter, some of them having more serious side effects and drug interactions than emergency contraception.

[MaxQue]

It's totally normal. In Quebec, the age of medical majority is 13, and we didn't collapsed yet (I tried to introduce that my my first stint in office, but it failed).

Yankee, honestly, the parents doesn't read the warning neither. Usually, any important detail about what you can/can't do/eat is said by the pharmacist. Look, if that make you better, we may insist on the pharmacist needing to outline very clearly that.

But I don't see why we should bother about control freak parents. They less control they have, the better it is. We should stop focusing on random age threshold.

[Sbane]

I already make a consultation required by the Pharmacist, just like some states require consultation every time you purchase Sudafed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

More Federalist nanny-stating is all the opposition to this bill is.

Careful, TNF. A Federalist did introduce this, after all.

This bill has the support of the administration. We believe that the government ought not to prevent any sexually mature individual from obtaining contraception.

My bad. I'll be more specific: right-wing nanny-statism.

I seem to recall voting with Administration on all but one of a littany of drug bills that recently came through the Senate, and wrote 90% of a stimulus bill for them not to mention having voted with the administration more than you have and seven other Senators so far. You must be really angry at our right wing President and his right wing administration.

It's totally normal. In Quebec, the age of medical majority is 13, and we didn't collapsed yet (I tried to introduce that my my first stint in office, but it failed).

Yankee, honestly, the parents doesn't read the warning neither. Usually, any important detail about what you can/can't do/eat is said by the pharmacist. Look, if that make you better, we may insist on the pharmacist needing to outline very clearly that.

But I don't see why we should bother about control freak parents. They less control they have, the better it is. We should stop focusing on random age threshold.

You should have left that last paragraph off and you might just have convinced me. Sometimes, parental guidance is essential and necessary. Especially between 12 and 16.

Because the concept of 14 year olds taking any kind of medication without the parents knowing about it is dangerous to the kids, especially if they didn't bother to read the warning labels and what they could and could not take iwth it, eat with it or do within a certain period afterwards. At the very least they should know enough to not in some way unknowingly harm their child and then have to live with that for the rest of their lives because it was them who gave them whatever or had them do whatever.

14 years old is the age of consent in the Republic of Atlasia. In Atlasia you can buy pornography and have sex at age fourteen, but by your logic, you shouldn't be able to buy a Plan B pill?

Am I on record as having voted for those things?

More Federalist nanny-stating is all the opposition to this bill is.

Careful, TNF. A Federalist did introduce this, after all.

This bill has the support of the administration. We believe that the government ought not to prevent any sexually mature individual from obtaining contraception.

What does sexually mature suppose to mean?

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Way to completely ignore what my post was actually about and try to make this into some 'TNF is an evil partisan!' schtick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know, and I really don't care all that much whether or not you voted for them. The point is that Atlasian law is inconsistent with regard to matters of sex and reproductive rights. The right-wing nanny-staters want to keep it that way because they feel that Atlasians aren't mature enough to make these decisions themselves, of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what it says.

[TJ in Oregon]

There's absolutely no way I will vote for this, but you all already knew that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Way to completely ignore what my post was actually about and try to make this into some 'TNF is an evil partisan!' schtick.

I don't recall bringing the partisanship into this:

More Federalist nanny-stating is all the opposition to this bill is.

Careful, TNF. A Federalist did introduce this, after all. My response was sarcasm aimed at highlighting the fact that you had and had done so in a way that I thought presumptious.

This bill has the support of the administration. We believe that the government ought not to prevent any sexually mature individual from obtaining contraception.

My bad. I'll be more specific: right-wing nanny-statism.

What would you call the bolded text? Just how am I a nanny-stater with that record. You cannot hurl a partisan colored insult (baseless I might add), and then play innocent and whine about someone else bringing up partisanship when they call you out on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know, and I really don't care all that much whether or not you voted for them. The point is that Atlasian law is inconsistent with regard to matters of sex and reproductive rights. The right-wing nanny-staters want to keep it that way because they feel that Atlasians aren't mature enough to make these decisions themselves, of course.

There I go again, bringing partisanship into this, oh wait...

Because the concept of 14 year olds taking any kind of medication without the parents knowing about it is dangerous to the kids, especially if they didn't bother to read the warning labels and what they could and could not take iwth it, eat with it or do within a certain period afterwards. At the very least they should know enough to not in some way unknowingly harm their child and then have to live with that for the rest of their lives because it was them who gave them whatever or had them do whatever.

14 years old is the age of consent in the Republic of Atlasia. In Atlasia you can buy pornography and have sex at age fourteen, but by your logic, you shouldn't be able to buy a Plan B pill?

The bold says you do care, or at least dictates that you should for the sake of the argument you are making. It is an attempt to push a charge of hypocrisy, but it only works if I support the status-quo backdrop you set it against, which you don't know. I am sure that works somewhere, though I cannot think of any that aren't an echo chamber filled pictures of the strawman you have set up as your opponents. 

I don't give a damn about people having sex, or how, where or in what. I don't have a problem with pre-marital sex and don't really have all that much against the recreational variety. Contraception is a common sex practice that I would definately want to encourage, but is never a 100% guarrantee and therefore I do worry whether a 14 year old should be doing it. Are some of them doing it, yes probably and if they are they should be educated and protected and there in lies the rub. I am not that far away from supporting this bill.

[MaxQue]

Believe me Yankee, I would prefer than 14 year old wouldn't have sex, but that won't happen, whether we like it or not.

Anyways, Atlasian age of content is 14, I think, it's logical than the age of access to contraception is the same. We don't want 14 year old kids having kids.

Anyways, it's not as if 14 year olds wouldn't have sex if wasn't legal. We have to deal with that fact and take the measures reducing damages cased by bad decisions/accidents/forced sex.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what it says.

What does sexually mature suppose to mean?

Exactly what it would say in any biology textbook, Yankee: "Capable of reproducing."

Unless pissed off, I generally attempt to avoid being presumptuous.

So you mean physically able to reproduce? Aren't males able to do that before 14, though? Again, not being presumptuous here, but why 14 and not 13?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Believe me Yankee, I would prefer than 14 year old wouldn't have sex, but that won't happen, whether we like it or not.

Anyways, Atlasian age of content is 14, I think, it's logical than the age of access to contraception is the same. We don't want 14 year old kids having kids.

Anyways, it's not as if 14 year olds wouldn't have sex if wasn't legal. We have to deal with that fact and take the measures reducing damages cased by bad decisions/accidents/forced sex.

Under that argument thoguh shouldn't it go back before the age of consent though? Some males can do it as young as 10 and if they are doing it with a 12 year old girl who isn't physically ready, that can be dangerous. So why wouldn't contraception be available in that case?

[tpfkaw]

It's reasonable to say that parents should probably know if their 14-year-old daughter is having unprotected sex, presumably with an older man (where else would she get the idea to go buy the morning-after pill?).  The bill should at very least allow pharmacies to set their own policies on parental notification.

Putting aside that it's apparently now okay to persecute people for their political, religious, or even medical opinions if they aren't considered "valid" by some non-pharmacist non-M.D. bureaucrat, it's ridiculous to create a mandate to sell these products without also protecting pharmacies from all liability related to their use.  You cannot force someone to sell something dangerous and then still hold them liable for injuries caused to the consumer.  Keep in mind also that younger teenage girls are especially likely to believe rumors or hearsay, and therefore likely to hold the misconception that these are "abortion pills," risking serious injury to themselves and to the baby (which of course would normally be a massive liability risk to any pharmacy).

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what it says.

What does sexually mature suppose to mean?

Exactly what it would say in any biology textbook, Yankee: "Capable of reproducing."

Unless pissed off, I generally attempt to avoid being presumptuous.

So you mean physically able to reproduce? Aren't males able to do that before 14, though? Again, not being presumptuous here, but why 14 and not 13?

I was under the impression that 14 was Atlasia's age of consent.

You are correct Mr. President.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what it says.

What does sexually mature suppose to mean?

Exactly what it would say in any biology textbook, Yankee: "Capable of reproducing."

Unless pissed off, I generally attempt to avoid being presumptuous.

So you mean physically able to reproduce? Aren't males able to do that before 14, though? Again, not being presumptuous here, but why 14 and not 13?

I was under the impression that 14 was Atlasia's age of consent.

Why wouldn't it be, I thought that was already established previously. So in that case because it isn't legal, no one under the age of 14 will be having sex then, correct?

Also the legal liability issue as mentioned by Worms. We shouldn't force someone to do something and then leave them with the liability for the consequences thereof of an action they didn't have a choice in. Does the administration have an opiniong on this matter.

[Sbane]

It's reasonable to say that parents should probably know if their 14-year-old daughter is having unprotected sex, presumably with an older man (where else would she get the idea to go buy the morning-after pill?).  The bill should at very least allow pharmacies to set their own policies on parental notification.

Putting aside that it's apparently now okay to persecute people for their political, religious, or even medical opinions if they aren't considered "valid" by some non-pharmacist non-M.D. bureaucrat, it's ridiculous to create a mandate to sell these products without also protecting pharmacies from all liability related to their use.  You cannot force someone to sell something dangerous and then still hold them liable for injuries caused to the consumer.  Keep in mind also that younger teenage girls are especially likely to believe rumors or hearsay, and therefore likely to hold the misconception that these are "abortion pills," risking serious injury to themselves and to the baby (which of course would normally be a massive liability risk to any pharmacy).

So Pharmacies shouldn't sell any drugs to those under 18 years old? I make a consultation mandatory so the Pharmacist can go over any pertinent information with the patient. I would also be very open to protect Pharmacists from liability for selling these products, but why wouldn't we do it for all drugs? What is special about the MAP? Can you demonstrate what risks are there which make it necessary to hold it to a higher standard? We have heard nothing concrete from your side.

Also, Pharmacists should not have the right to not dispense the MAP for non-medical reasons. If they feel that the therapy is not correct for the patient (perhaps they have an allergy), that is a different story. And I do protect the Pharmacist for making the judgment not to sell due to medical reasons. I don't protect them for religious reasons because it is a dereliction of duty as far as I am concerned. No one forced them to be a Pharmacist. If they cannot fully perform their duty due to religious reasons, they should choose another profession.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what it says.

What does sexually mature suppose to mean?

Exactly what it would say in any biology textbook, Yankee: "Capable of reproducing."

Unless pissed off, I generally attempt to avoid being presumptuous.

So you mean physically able to reproduce? Aren't males able to do that before 14, though? Again, not being presumptuous here, but why 14 and not 13?

I was under the impression that 14 was Atlasia's age of consent.

Why wouldn't it be, I thought that was already established previously. So in that case because it isn't legal, no one under the age of 14 will be having sex then, correct?

Also the legal liability issue as mentioned by Worms. We shouldn't force someone to do something and then leave them with the liability for the consequences thereof of an action they didn't have a choice in. Does the administration have an opiniong on this matter.

Pharmacists will still have the option to deny the MAP for medical reasons. Are there risks present in MAP's that are not present in other drugs. Trust me, Pharmacists dispense way more dangerous drugs to minors than a MAP. Hell, they dispense birth control pills all the time. Why is this different? In any case, I am always ready to protect Pharmacists from liability. But why stop at MAP's. Let's extend it even further.