Plan B, Abortion Pill Supporters Try To Blur The Line Between Women And Female Children

By Susan Duclos
Kathleen Parker over at Washington Post, hits the nail right on the head as she points out how the Plan B abortion pill supporters are attempting to blur the line between women and underage female children, by claiming all women should have access to the abortion pill.
Parker:

Here’s an experiment to demonstrate.
Question 1: Do you think that women should have access to Plan B, also known as the morning-after pill, to be used at their own discretion? Yes!
 
Question 2: Do you think that girls as young as 11 or 12 should be able to buy the morning-after pill without any adult supervision? Didn’t think so.
Question 3: If you answered yes to Question 2, are you a parent? Didn’t think so.
Perhaps a few parents answered yes to Question 3, but not many, I suspect. Yet, repeatedly in the past several days, we’ve heard the argument that any interference with the over-the-counter sale of Plan B to any female of any age is blocking a woman’s right to self-determination. Fifteen-year-olds, where the Obama administration wants to set the limit, are girls, not women. And female parts do not a woman make any more than a correspondingly developed male makes the proud possessor a man.

Parker continues later in the article:

The pros are obvious: Plan B, if taken within three days of unprotected sex, greatly reduces the chance of pregnancy. If a child waits too long to take the pill, however, a fertilized egg could reach the uterine wall and become implanted, after which the drug is useless.
You see how the word “child” keeps getting in the way.
There’s no point debating whether such young girls should be sexually active. Obviously, given the potential consequences, both physical and psychological, the answer is no. Just as obvious, our culture says quite the opposite: As long as there’s an exit, whether abortion or Plan B, what’s the incentive to await mere maturity?
Advocates for lifting age limits on Plan B, including Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, insist that the pill is universally safe and, therefore, all age barriers should be dropped. From a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, this may be well-advised. But is science the only determining factor when it comes to the well-being of our children?

Even President Obama, who once boasted that his policies would be based on science and not emotion, has parental qualms about children buying serious drugs to treat a situation that has deeply psychological underpinnings.
What about the right of parents to protect their children? A 15-year-old can’t get Tylenol at school without parental permission, but we have no hesitation about children taking a far more serious drug without oversight?

 There is a reason that parents are responsible for their children's actions until they are of age, usually the age of 18, and decisions about a child's health and health care should be left to the parents until they are of age.
The majority of minor children do not have the maturity to think long-term, nor fully understand the ramification of their actions, being that they are, indeed, children.