Why is it that if you oppose a health care position, you are labeled anti-women?

Let me explain. I’m reading this story in USA Today  about the feds dropping the appeal over the morning after pill. A court has ordered the Department of Justice to comply with the sale of the morning-after pill to girls of any age without a prescription. Once the FDA receives the new drug application from the makers of the pill, it plans to approve it promptly.

Whether you agree or disagree with this decision, it is the language involved in reporting that really bothers me. If you agree that young girls should have access to the pill at any age without parental notice,  you are an advocate for girls and women. And if you think young girls should involve their parents in their medical care, you oppose “reproductive justice.”

Supporters of all access for the pill cry out for “absolute rights” for all women.

So, do school children have “absolute rights” to refuse vaccinations required by law to attend public schools? What if those girls don’t want a doctor controlling their body by giving them a shot? And if my minor child decides she wants breast implants, should she have an “absolute right” to have that procedure without parent permission? I know that sounds absurd, but so do these arguments.

For most parents, the issue is about knowing what is happening to their child’s health for whom they are responsible. This is common sense, not politics!

I would never want my minor daughter involved in any medical procedure or medication without my guidance. She is still under my care, and I am responsibility for her health care. If something goes wrong or there is a side effect, is the federal government going to come to the clinic and provide her care? No, it will be the parents who are expected to deal with the fall out, but have none of the information. If I neglect my daughter’s health care, I can be hauled into court. Honestly, I see allowing girls to get over the counter prescriptions as a form of neglect. No physician is overseeing their care and this is not a best practice. No one is attending to the emotional issues involved in having sex, becoming pregnant and making decisions about the life of a child–this is neglect of the mental health of a person. And you can’t tell me otherwise because I have treated far too many women who made these type of decisions at a young age and admit they wished they had guidance, someone to talk to about their decisions (not a clinic), and more realistic options.

Bottom line, people are not opposing women just because they want some supervision over the health care of minor children. Stop turning these decisions into some kind of political agenda about womens’ rights! How about if we get really radical and consider the health of our children! Just once, I would like to read about an issue where the medical facts, the psychological and spiritual implications are presented without over the top rhetoric. There is no real dialogue about issues like this because the opposition is vilified.

Ann Higgins, director of the councils’ Center for Human Dignity, responded to the lifting of the appeal by saying this was a good move because it put the health and safety of women over politics. I couldn’t disagree more. Involving parents and physicians is putting the health and safety of young girls first and is NOT a political issue–it’s a health and safety issue.

But if the health and safety issue comes down on the wrong side of the political argument, get ready, you are labeled anti-women!