~aardvark says:

“Morning after” pills do not abort fetuses. There is no “father” in this case since there was no pregnancy (even if you believe in a fetus being an unborn child).

If you believe, as “Raving Atheist” and many religious people do, that a single-celled organism with a unique set of human DNA is already a “person”, then there is an appreciable chance that the morning after pill will kill such a person. If you’ve got to go out and buy that pill the morning after, it will generally be 8 to 12 hours after intercourse before you take it, and even longer for the hormones to get into your bloodstream. There’s a pretty good chance that if you were going to get pregnant in the first place, ovulation and fertilization has already happened by then.

But because the m-a pill is a high dose of female hormones, there’s a second chance at preventing a recognizable pregnancy. All the hormones from the m-a pill will swamp the hormones that the tiny little blastocyst is emitting to prepare the uterus for implantation. And then, as the artificial hormones are cleared from the body, the uterus reacts by going into menstruation, shedding it’s surface cells and bleeding. It’s an amazingly tough and lucky blastocyst that manages to grab a stable spot and hang on through this.

So, a few percent of m-a pills will cause a microscopic being with a unique set of human chromosomes to be flushed down the toilet. For those who are unable to see anything more important about humanity than the germ line (such as, say, a nervous system), this is a “baby” getting flushed away. You don’t know when it happens, but it’s certain that it does happen many times every week.

Roger the Shrubber:
Perhaps, but to just about any lawyer, this one is worth a “wow.”Not doing legal research is bad enough, but admitting it to a judge…..

I am not a lawyer and that one raised all sorts of alarms in my head.

I have been on the edges of some legal problems in the past and have done my own cursory research to try to get a handle on what I needed to do to avoid trouble. Call me paranoid, but if I can’t look things up myself, I won’t follow a lawyer’s advice (after all it’s my neck on the line not his).

1040: Some of the comments here are hilarious. Given how poor the knowledge of some of the commenters here about contraceptive techniques is, it is quite funny to see those selfsame commenters wanting to “educate” their “clueless” children about their appropriateness (or otherwise).

They are ignorant of the law, ignorant of physiology and ignorant of the respective technology, not to mention the options that accompany it. The only thing that they do know is that they are right–a classic case of “open your mouth and remove all doubt”. And when they get tired of making up facts, they resort to attacking “relativism”.

egd: There is still a victim and a crime, and presumably the office didn’t inquire as to the age of the father

“Morning after” pills do not abort fetuses. There is no “father” in this case since there was no pregnancy (even if you believe in a fetus being an unborn child). In fact, we have no idea if there was even a potential pregnancy. The point of the pill is to prevent pregnancy even if the woman is ovulating and has unprotected sex. In all other cases it does absolutely nothing.

And if affirmative defense applied here, there is no crime and no victim–affirmative defense implies admission to the facts but disclaiming that there was any criminal conduct, not that there was a crime committed, but the actors are excused.

tvk: Oh, and the clinic’s behavior can potentially also be prosecuted as being an accessory after-the-fact to statutory rape; so the father may be able to find a civil cause of action there, too.

If you believe that, I very much hope that you are not a lawyer licensed to practice anywhere in the US. Even if there was an issue of statutory rape, you have absolutely no idea what an “accessory after the fact” is.

vic: Cornellian with his combination of completely unreasoned arguments and attitude of smug superciliousness really gets my goat sometimes.

Perhaps, but to just about any lawyer, this one is worth a “wow.” Not doing legal research is bad enough, but admitting it to a judge…..

egd: Well, if that 14-year-old girl got the condoms from someone who “is licensed or certified by the state or who is an employee of a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state and who, in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, has direct contact with children,” then the individual would have a duty to report the potential crime to authorities.

How does that square up with the Supreme court’s decision in Carey v. Population Services and the strict scrutiny articulated there?

It seems to me the easiest thing to do is to remove sales or offering of contraceptives generally from what the law requires one to report….

S: egd: If there is an ironclad defense, there is no crime, no victim and no ethical prosecutor could bring charges, given that the fact, here, is easily established.

How would the age of the offender be “easily established?” Do you think a 14 year old girl might lie to protect her older boyfriend?

Even assuming the Defendant has an ironclad defense, is the girl still a “victim” of statutory rape?

I’d be inclined to say no, but the mandatory reporting law doesn’t answer the question.

Chris Travers: So if a 14-year-old girl walks into a pharmacy and buys condoms, the sale would be in violation of the law? Is that in line with existing Supreme Court precedent?

Well, if that 14-year-old girl got the condoms from someone who “is licensed or certified by the state or who is an employee of a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state and who, in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, has direct contact with children,” then the individual would have a duty to report the potential crime to authorities.

ShelbyC: If the 14yo consents, I wonder if she’s an accessory?

Also I would point out that the Supreme Court has stated that the state MAY NOT restrict sales of contraceptives to minors. So this more or less blows away Brett’s theory.

Oren__: State law requires him to do both. Notification is not antithetical to treatment — it is in fact entirely orthogonal.

Ooooh. Orthogonal…..

ShelbyC: State law requires him to do both. Notification is not antithetical to treatment — it is in fact entirely orthogonal.

In Michael M (upholding gender-based definitions for statutory rape), one thing the concurrence pointed out was that although the law made it a much more severe crime for the male on the surface, indeed it wasn’t the case because the female could be tried as an accessory (and also that California at the time provided other penalties that were gender-agnostic as well).

In essence what the concurrence said was that the equal protection issues there didn’t really occur in part because the girl could have been charged as an accomplice anyway, and that if the roles were reversed, she would still have been committing a crime (just one which was not as severe). This difference was justified (in both the majority and concurring opinions) by the concerns over teenage pregnancy.

botched his remand motion for apparently technical faults (did not include a satisfactory proposed order and adequate contact information), and has now been dismissed and precluded from refiling.

Whoa Nelly! I thought it was a universal rule that the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and that federal courts have an independent duty to scrutinize every case for subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has instructed (I forgot the citation) that a federal cannot may not examine the merits until it has determined that it has subject matter jurisdiction — even if the motion to dismiss can more easily be decided on “does not state a claim” grounds than on “no subject matter jurisdiction” grounds.

Even if the remand motion was defective, the district judge should first have determined that he had subject matter jurisdiction. Without that determination, the opinion as to the merits is worthless. Sounds like a good ground for appeal.

Why can’t the father argue, ala Meyer v Nebraska, etc., that he has a right to raise his children in accordance with his own religious and moral beliefs and that Title X of the federal program discussed in the opinion, which requires the clinic to provide services without parental consent, is unconstitutional and substantially interferes with that right? I would imagine this could be a First Amendment claim (free exercise clause), and/or (gasp, all of you rightwingers) a claim based on the rights preserved to him by the Ninth Amendment and his substantive due process rights based on the Fourteenth Amendment. I am not familiar with federal challenges to the program in question so this may have been decided already, but the way I see this issue, there is a nice conflict between the parental rights of the father and the reproductive rights of the minor daughter and I would venture that there could be a non-frivolous argument to be made on the side of the father. Nuisance, however, is not it (I agree with the judge on that).

If it’s nonconsensual rape or incest, should the doctor still have to notify, or should his primary responsibility be treating his patient?

State law requires him to do both. Notification is not antithetical to treatment — it is in fact entirely orthogonal.

So if a 14-year-old girl walks into a pharmacy and buys condoms, the sale would be in violation of the law? Is that in line with existing Supreme Court precedent?

No, only medical professionals are mandatory reporters, not sales clerks. If you read the statutes, you’d know that.

ShelbyC: I’m not sure what Brett’s claim is, but isn’t #1 in fact the law in most states? You may agree or disagree, but it’s the law, no?

No, it’s not in fact the law in most states. Most states have a requirement that the victim be a minor AND that there be a preset difference in age whereby the victim is X years younger than the defendant. In California the age difference is 4 years so this 14 year old could have had sex with anyone from the age of 14 through 18. My understanding is that Texas has a 2 year age difference requirement meaning that she could have legally had sex with anyone from the age of 14 through 16. Also, note that the requirement is that the victim is younger than the defendant. So no, they are not assaulting each other. If she had sex with a 19 year old, under California law, he is assaulting her.

Nobody Really: My kid’s school needs a permission form to give them Tylenol, but the morning after pill requires no parental consent. What is wrong with this picture?

The state forces your daughter to spend her days at Planned Parenthood? Weird.

Or did you mean that you should be king and both private actors and government schools should just bow to your will?

Chris Travers: So if a 14-year-old girl walks into a pharmacy and buys condoms, the sale would be in violation of the law? Is that in line with existing Supreme Court precedent?

If the 14yo consents, I wonder if she’s an accessory?

Anthony:
Even if you limit yourself to post-implantation, miscarriage is pretty common, but who says definitions have to be sensible? The Catholic Church objects to both UIDs and morning-after pills.

The Catholic Church objects to normal birth control pills and condoms too…..

egd:
In Texas, it is an affirmative defense to statutory rape that the defendant was less than 3 years older than the victim.There is still a victim and a crime, and presumably the office didn’t inquire as to the age of the father (most clinics don’t take mandatory reporting seriously in cases of statutory rape).

In Texas, the facility may have committed a Class B misdemeanor by failing to report a possible statutory rape.But I don’t think that gives the father any recourse if the state refuses to prosecute (and it probably will so refuse).

So if a 14-year-old girl walks into a pharmacy and buys condoms, the sale would be in violation of the law? Is that in line with existing Supreme Court precedent?

Smallholder, let me hasten to assure you that I have NEVER gotten a cheerleader to climb into the back seat.

Another fantasy shot to hell.

Shane: A lot of states have exceptions in place for instances where the consenting teens are less than 3 years apart.

In Texas, it is an affirmative defense to statutory rape that the defendant was less than 3 years older than the victim. There is still a victim and a crime, and presumably the office didn’t inquire as to the age of the father (most clinics don’t take mandatory reporting seriously in cases of statutory rape).

In Texas, the facility may have committed a Class B misdemeanor by failing to report a possible statutory rape. But I don’t think that gives the father any recourse if the state refuses to prosecute (and it probably will so refuse).

The morning after pill does NOT prevent pregnancy; it prevents a fertilized ovum from attaching to the uterine wall and growing.

Definition problem here. From a medical point of view, there isn’t a pregnancy until the ovum attaches. A fertilized ovum, in itself, is not a pregnancy.

markm: Brett: Is your claim that two 14 year olds having sex are raping each other, or that 14 year olds would only have sex with a much older person? #2 is definitely counterfactual. #1 is just twisted.

I’m not sure what Brett’s claim is, but isn’t #1 in fact the law in most states? You may agree or disagree, but it’s the law, no?

Yes, the sanction is on the lawyer, not the client, tho maybe the client could be made to pay too if it were shown that he urged the lawyer to do it. See

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

Brett Bellmore: There is every reason to believe that a minor obtaining birth control, especially the morning after pill, is involved in statutory rape. Denying them birth control may not reduce the likelihood of them having sex, but giving them birth control secretly certainly makes sure the statutory rape won’t be reported to the authorities.

First of all, you seem to be making all sorts of assumptions about the likelihood of statutory rape happening. A lot of states have exceptions in place for instances where the consenting teens are less than 3 years apart. Secondly, in what way does parental notification address your concerns regarding statutory rape? If it’s nonconsensual rape or incest, should the doctor still have to notify, or should his primary responsibility be treating his patient?

I feel like your ideal policy would lead to a greater number of abortions, both the professional and the coat hanger variety.

Chris Travers:
I think abortion, to be a useful definition, would have to be defined as post-implantation. Otherwise miscarriage becomes so darned common place that there is no reason to care about abortion at all…..

Even if you limit yourself to post-implantation, miscarriage is pretty common, but who says definitions have to be sensible? The Catholic Church objects to both UIDs and morning-after pills.

Edward A. Hoffman: Call me a cynic, but somehow I don’t expect any Republicans who rail against the supposed epidemic of frivolous lawsuits to use this case as an example.

Actually, on reading this, the frivolous lawsuit aspect was my first response. But then, I am a pro-choice Republican, struggling more with the noun than the adjective.

Though the caucuses two weeks ago are giving me encouragement.

tvk: Oh, and the clinic’s behavior can potentially also be prosecuted as being an accessory after-the-fact to statutory rape; so the father may be able to find a civil cause of action there, too.

AFAIK in Texas if there’s less than two years difference between the teen’s ages consensual sex isn’t sexual assault.

To paraphrase a famous job evaluation comment, “This attorney failed to meet the inadequate standards he set for himself.”