Federal judge: The morning-after pill should be available without prescription — regardless of age

posted at 2:41 pm on April 5, 2013 by Allahpundit

You don’t want your 13-year-old running around town at midnight looking for a pharmacist on duty just to get hold of some Plan B, do you?

Believe it or not, this guy is … a Reagan appointee.

Describing the restriction as “a strong showing of bad faith and improper political influence” Judge Edward Korman of the District Court of Eastern New York directed the Food and Drug Administration to lift it within 30 days.

“The decisions of the Secretary with respect to Plan B One-Step…were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable,” Judge Korman wrote, directing the FDA to “Make levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives available without a prescription and without point-of-sale or age restrictions within thirty days.”

Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected in 2011 a request to allow teenage girls and women to buy Plan B over-the-counter in drugstores and pharmacies. In doing so, she overruled the FDA, which was set to rule that the morning-after pill be made available to all women, with no prescription necessary.

It’s “arbitrary” for the Secretary of HHS to distinguish between adult women and minors, who are under the legal supervision of adults and who, needless to say, are at a different stage of physical and psychological development? It is in the context of administrative law, says the judge. A key bit from his opinion:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed…

I pause to add these brief words before I begin the discussion of the legal issues. This case has proven to be particularly controversial because it involves access to emergency contraception for adolescents who should not be engaging in conduct that necessitates the use of such drugs and because of the scientifically unsupported speculation that the drug could interfere with implantation of fertilized eggs. Nevertheless, the issue in this case involves the interpretation of a general statutory and regulatory scheme relating to the approval of drugs for over-the-counter sale. The standards are the same for aspirin and for contraceptives. While the FDA properly recognizes that cognitive and behavioral differences undermine “the ability of adolescents to make reasoned decisions about engaging in sexual intercourse,” the standard for determining whether contraceptives or any other drug should be available over-the-counter turns solely on the ability of the consumer to understand how to use the particular drug “safely and effectively.” Ex. A-4 to Pls.’ 2007 Mot. for Summ. J. at T-31097, Case No. 05-cv-366, Doc. No. 235-5. I decide this case based only on my understanding of the applicable standard.

The FDA thinks OTC availability for minors is safe-ish and Sebelius isn’t offering any hard evidence that it isn’t, so that’s that. Not even the secretary of HHS is allowed to limit access to drugs for purely moral/political reasons, even with the president’s endorsement. (And do note, before the left gets going on those prudish wingnuts who fret about young teens accessing Plan B on demand, Obama supported Sebelius’s decision to deny the drug to 16-and-unders.) I’m at the mercy of administrative-law litigators as to whether the legal standard applied here is correct or likely to be reversed on appeal, but presumably Congress could impose the prescription requirement for minors as a matter of federal statute. After all, they have lots of experience with drug distinctions that are more arbitrary than this. Would there be any political will to do so, though? Democrats don’t want this debate because defending a 13-year-old’s right to the morning-after pill without a prescription is … suboptimal politics, which of course is why Sebelius and Obama tried to restrict it. The GOP probably doesn’t want this debate either because it’ll instantly become fodder for liberal slippery-slope shrieking about theocracy and how conservatives want to ban all forms of contraception, even for adults, blah blah blah. Opponents’ best bet is winning on appeal, if not in the Second Circuit then in the Supreme Court. But as to the odds of that happening, I honestly can’t say. Any admin-law experts want to weigh in?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You know how stores have sales sometimes that say “ABSOLUTELY NO RETURNS!”?

Untrue, if the stores sell the items to minors. A parent can bring the merchandise back and demand a full refund. In the case of minors, it is a situation of caveat venditor.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 6:52 PM

I have to stop at some point, so I’ll stop with this nugget:

Minors are not confined to return policies and thusly can return any purchased item without restriction.

Crazy.

segasagez on April 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM

The judiciary once again shows their dedication to enabling reckless acts involving children. Imagine that.

Stoic Patriot on April 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM

I thought we were the party of less government?! And it is NOT an abortion pill. Cmon now and move along people.

jayhawkboilermaker on April 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

What you wrote just isn’t true. But let’s assume that it is.

I don’t have to assume it. I CAN’T NOTARISE THE TITLE BECAUSE HE IS A MINOR. The age of majority is 18. HE CANNOT TRANSFER THE TITLE.

If what you wrote is true, can a minor buy anything at all? How is a minor able to buy gum or a candy bar?

I said that a minor cannot enter into a contract. That doesn’t mean that he will not. It means that it is NOT legally binding and, if his parents or legal guardians wish to return to the circumstances before the transaction, they can and the seller has no legal recourse. NONE.

That’s not a situation. It’s just a word. What would be the situation where a pharmacist could reasonably be sued for legally selling a product? It’s fine if contraindication is a part of the scenario, but contraindication doesn’t say anything.

If the pharmacist knew or should have known that one drug that he was selling me was contraindicated for usage with a medical condition that I may have or other drug that I may take, then I can sue him. That is why you have to check off the counselling boxes and sign your name on the little electronic thingies at big pharmacies. They are attempting to get a waiver or, at least, limit liability.

Minors are not confined to return policies and thusly can return any purchased item without restriction.

I realise that you think it is crazy, but it is actually 100% true.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 7:08 PM

I thought we were the party of less government?! And it is NOT an abortion pill. Cmon now and move along people.

jayhawkboilermaker on April 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

I didn’t know that your party was the party of early emancipation either.

Interesting to see Republicans cheering on a black robe ordering the HHS to make it legal for an 11 year-old girl to purchase a pill that, if she brought to school would get her a 10-day suspension or expelled.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I thought we were the party of less government?! And it is NOT an abortion pill. Cmon now and move along people.

jayhawkboilermaker on April 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Such a dishonest argument you have there.

You sound like someone who cannot handle complexity.

CW on April 5, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Why yes, yes you did. Here endeth the lesson.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Very Very Nicely Done!!

bluefox on April 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Well if this drug law is arbitrary… then so is each and every single drug law on the books.

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 7:44 PM

You will notice that the age of majority is 18 in all of the below examples. Where minors are allowed to contract, it is by specifically defined in the statute, limited to very few situations, and require a court order or authorisation. Legally married minors are allowed to contract and to be legally bound, as they should be and I should have pointed that out earlier. In most cases, the few exceptions that have been carved out are the result of lobbyists (banks, higher education institutions, universities, entertainment companies/athletic franchises because many states make such contracts binding even for 5 year olds, etc).

A minor can disaffirm a contract at any point before his age of majority or for a reasonable time after his majority. His parents or legal guardians can, likewise, disaffirm for him, in his stead. (A minor buys a car and promises to pay a man $500 a month. He doesn’t have a job. He doesn’t make the payment. The minor can’t be sued. The parents cannot be sued because the contract can be voided. Period)

Minors & Contracts – A Few Examples:

FLORIDA:

743.07 Rights, privileges, and obligations of persons 18 years of age or older.

(1) The disability of nonage is hereby removed for all persons in this state who are 18 years of age or older, and they shall enjoy and suffer the rights, privileges, and obligations of all persons 21 years of age or older except as otherwise excluded by the State Constitution immediately preceding the effective date of this section and except as otherwise provided in the Beverage Law.

743.015 Disabilities of nonage; removal.

(1) A circuit court has jurisdiction to remove the disabilities of nonage of a minor age 16 or older residing in this state upon a petition filed by the minor’s natural or legal guardian or, if there is none, by a guardian ad litem.

743.01 Removal of disabilities of married minors.

The disability of nonage of a minor who is married or has been married or subsequently becomes married, including one whose marriage is dissolved, or who is widowed, or widowered, is removed. The minor may assume the management of his or her estate, contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, and perform all acts that he or she could do if not a minor.

743.04 Removal of disabilities of persons entitled to benefits under the “Home, Farm and Business Loans Act.”

A minor authorized to participate in the rights, privileges, and benefits conferred by chapter 37 of Title 38, U.S.C., “Home, Farm and Business Loans Act,” is authorized to make and execute all contracts necessary for the full utilization of the rights, privileges, and benefits conferred under said chapter if the person is otherwise competent to make and execute contracts. The contracts so made shall have the same effect as though they were the contracts of persons who were not minors.

743.044 Removal of disabilities of minors; executing agreements for depository financial services.;

For the purpose of ensuring that a youth in foster care will be able to secure depository financial services, such as checking and savings accounts, the disability of nonage of minors shall be removed provided that the youth has reached 16 years of age, has been adjudicated dependent, is residing in an out-of-home placement as defined in s. 39.01, and has completed a financial literacy class. Upon issuance of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction, such a youth is authorized to make and execute all documents, contracts, or agreements necessary for obtaining the rights, privileges, and benefits of depository financial services as if the youth is otherwise competent to make and execute contracts. Execution of any such contract or agreement for depository financial services shall have the same effect as if it were the act of a person who is not a minor. A youth seeking to enter into such contracts or agreements or execute other necessary instruments incidental to obtaining depository financial services must present an order from a court of competent jurisdiction removing the disabilities of nonage of the minor under this section.

743.045 Removal of disabilities of minors; executing contracts for a residential lease.

For the sole purpose of ensuring that a youth in foster care will be able to execute a contract for the lease of residential property upon the youth’s 18th birthday, the disability of nonage of minors is removed for all youth who have reached 17 years of age, have been adjudicated dependent, and are in the legal custody of the Department of Children and Family Services through foster care or subsidized independent living. These youth are authorized to make and execute contracts, releases, and all other instruments necessary for the purpose of entering into a contract for the lease of residential property upon the youth’s 18th birthday. The contracts or other instruments made by the youth shall have the same effect as though they were the obligations of persons who were not minors. A youth seeking to enter into such lease contracts or execute other necessary instruments that are incidental to entering into a lease must present an order from a court of competent jurisdiction removing the disabilities of nonage of the minor under this section.

743.05 Removal of disabilities of minors; borrowing money for educational purposes.

For the purpose of borrowing money for their own higher educational expenses, the disability of nonage of minors is removed for all persons who have reached 16 years of age. Such minors are authorized to make and execute promissory notes, contracts, or other instruments necessary for the borrowing of money for this purpose. The promissory notes, contracts, or other instruments so made shall have the same effect as though they were the obligations of persons who were not minors. No such obligation shall be valid if the interest rate on it exceeds the prevailing interest rate for the federal Guaranteed Student Loan Program.

NEW YORK: Gen. Oblig. §§3-101, et seq.

A minor, his parents, his legal guardian, his executors and/or heirs, should he die before reaching the age of majority, disaffirm most contracts if disaffirmed within reasonable time after reaching majority; exceptions: (1). certain loans; (2). married infant buying home; (3). providing medical care for self/child; (4). for performing athletic or arts services if court-approved; (5). life insurance if 15 or over; (6). or if veteran or veteran’s spouse (Gen. Oblig. §§3-101, et seq.)

CALIFORNIA: FAMILY CODE SECTION 6710-6712

6710. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards or, by his parents or legal guardians, or in case of the minor’s death within that period, by the minor’s heirs or personal representative.

6711. A minor cannot disaffirm an obligation, otherwise valid,
entered into by the minor under the express authority or direction of a statute.

6712. A contract, otherwise valid, entered into during minority,
may not be disaffirmed on that ground either during the actual
minority of the person entering into the contract, or at any time
thereafter, if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(a) The contract is to pay the reasonable value of things
necessary for the support of the minor or the minor’s family.

(b) These things have been actually furnished to the minor or to
the minor’s family.

(c) The contract is entered into by the minor when not under the care of a parent or guardian able to provide for the minor or the minor’s family.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Yet another threat on parenting — no surprise here (with the exception he was appt’d by Reagan.)

It’s time not only for term limits, but age limits, imo.

jersey taxpayer on April 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

This conservative concern has nothing to do with parental rights and everything to do with abortion. They don’t want the RU 486 pill sold at all. And they certainly don’t want it sold over the counter. The “minor” aspect is a red herring. As far as they are concerned, no woman, of ANY age, should be allowed to have RU486.

But she should be able to have an AR-15. Pill bad. Gun good.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

This is another moronic troll who doesn’t even know what the topic of the thread is. We are not talking about RU486. We are talking about “Plan B,” which a couple of people have listed side effects for, right here on this thread.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that their are libtards on here who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of a 12 year old being able to get a potentially dangerous DRUG without a doctor’s consult or a parent’s consent.

I shudder to think of what they will be supporting next.

JannyMae on April 5, 2013 at 8:20 PM

There ^^

Drat you, autocorrect!

JannyMae on April 5, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Sorry, didn’t see your earlier post. I guess great minds think alike. :)

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I once thought that my fellow conservative agreed with me that liberty meant that I had a right to raise my children as I see fit, and that the nanny state meant that laws were being passed that restricted ADULT behavior. Apparently that is not the case. Liberty now means that children must be able to do what ever they want despite and parents should have NO Say in how they are raised, and any laws giving the parents rights and privileges over children are the nanny state.

I guess when we talk about the slippery slope and changing consent laws that day isn’t very far off based on some of the trolls on this thread.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 8:33 PM

It’s time not only for term limits, but age limits, imo.

jersey taxpayer on April 5, 2013 at 8:15 PM

It really does not serve America that well to have doddering old fossils deciding on nation-wide issues.

MelonCollie on April 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM

I am confused, did the judge decide that no one needs a prescription for this, and you used to need one before?

Plan Bis a anti-ovulation drug best taken prior to sex or right after. It stops ovulation. It says on it, that if you are already pregnant it is not going to do anything for you. And, it also says on it that once you use it, to see your doctor to consult about changes in your sexual behavior that might require regular anti ovulation pills…which as far as I know, still require a prescription.

There is a problem that adults worry about, and that is that younger girls might be being used by adults or older teens and use non prescription contraceptives to make it seem alright. When it isn’t, and it isn’t legal. These girls need SOMEONE to talk to, and the burden is going to fall on the pharmacist!

Fleuries on April 5, 2013 at 8:44 PM

No, you can’t murder whomever you please.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Yes you can…according to Feinstein, anyway…I recall a comment by her about something about it being legal to hunt humans with high capacity magazines…

sage0925 on April 5, 2013 at 8:46 PM

No, you can’t murder whomever you please.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Of course you can murder whomever you please. Just be prepared to pay the consequences for it.

Just as drunk driving laws don’t stop drunk driving and gun control laws don’t stop criminals from using guns, murder laws do not prevent murder.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 8:48 PM

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 8:33 PM

You, as a parent, have no rights and the left will only feign indignation and question your role as a parent if your child mentions God or eats his pop tart into the shape of a gun on school grounds. Actually, you are risking condemnation for allowing him to eat that pop tart. Sad, isn’t it?

fight like a girl on April 5, 2013 at 8:54 PM

I’ll bet 10 years from now we’ll find out about all the dangerous side effects of the morning after pill and the girls that took it are sterilized for life. Ambulance chasers will be running advertisements hourly and the libs will blame Bush.

TulsAmerican on April 5, 2013 at 8:59 PM

I am confused, did the judge decide that no one needs a prescription for this, and you used to need one before?

Plan Bis a anti-ovulation drug best taken prior to sex or right after. It stops ovulation. It says on it, that if you are already pregnant it is not going to do anything for you. And, it also says on it that once you use it, to see your doctor to consult about changes in your sexual behavior that might require regular anti ovulation pills…which as far as I know, still require a prescription.

There is a problem that adults worry about, and that is that younger girls might be being used by adults or older teens and use non prescription contraceptives to make it seem alright. When it isn’t, and it isn’t legal. These girls need SOMEONE to talk to, and the burden is going to fall on the pharmacist!

Fleuries on April 5, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Plan B was available by FDA regulation OTC to 17 and older. Younger girls could get it but only by prescription. The judge ruled that this was an overreach by their agency and ruled that the drug must be available OTC with NO prescription to ALL ages.

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Federal God Judge: “Your children belong to me”.

VorDaj on April 5, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Why not make beer and cigarettes available to all ages?

VorDaj on April 5, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Why not make beer and cigarettes available to all ages?

VorDaj on April 5, 2013 at 9:02 PM

That is what this sort of decision portends, isn’t it?

Whole swaths of laws ruled as arbitrary… who would have thought it would start with drugs?

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Here again we have the State assuming the roles of parents.

onlineanalyst on April 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM

This sound like a trial lawyers dream come true. If some kid gets sick or dies they’ll be sueing he manufacturer, the businesses that sell it, and eveybody involve except the federal judge that made this crazy ruling. The inmates are indeed in control of the asylum.

savage24 on April 5, 2013 at 9:32 PM

New Steyn…

The ‘Vigilance’ Vigilantes

M2RB: ‘Til Tuesday

Resist We Much on April 5, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I once thought that my fellow conservative agreed with me that liberty meant that I had a right to raise my children as I see fit, and that the nanny state meant that laws were being passed that restricted ADULT behavior . Apparently that is not the case. Liberty now means that children must be able to do what ever they want despite and parents should have NO Say in how they are raised, and any laws giving the parents rights and privileges over children are the nanny state.
I guess when we talk about the slippery slope and changing consent laws that day isn’t very far off based on some of the trolls on this thread.
melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Your fellow conservatives do agree with you.

The day the government forces you to have an abortion you don’t want, then you will be on the right side of history.
keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:43 PM

It is always appropriate to warn about the potential of sliding from permission to coercion before it happens, as that is the only thing that might possibly prevent it happening.

The right side of history is like the right side of a Möbius strip.

Taking the ruling to the absurd: http://www.thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/people-s-court-orders-abortion-meds-for-grade-schoolers-t10940.html

onlineanalyst on April 5, 2013 at 9:26 PM

The USSR specialized in theater of the absurd.
And the comment thread is hilariously parallel to this one.

AesopFan on April 5, 2013 at 10:04 PM

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I was ‘lucky’ enough to come down with shingles when I was 21. As a parting ‘gift’, it left me w/ nerve damage in my right ring finger. The only thing that helps the pain is Lyrica. I transferred my script to my Wally-and when I picked it up today I had to show ID and fill out a controlled-substance form.
I’m 42!
A kid can get plan B w/o a problem?
WTF?!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I’m anti-abortion, anti-ssm…and I’m JEWISH.
Try again, bucky.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM

was ‘lucky’ enough to come down with shingles when I was 21. As a parting ‘gift’, it left me w/ nerve damage in my right ring finger. The only thing that helps the pain is Lyrica. I transferred my script to my Wally-and when I picked it up today I had to show ID and fill out a controlled-substance form.
I’m 42!
A kid can get plan B w/o a problem?
WTF?!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM

What actually is funniest about it is that it is emergency birth control, but birth control isn’t available over the counter…

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Here again we have the State assuming the roles of parents.

onlineanalyst on April 5, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Let’s just turn our kids over to Big Brother. We can get them back when they grow up …..at age 27.

CW on April 5, 2013 at 11:06 PM

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

That’s reenactments, dumb$h!t.

Hey, you hear that? I think your cousin’s calling you to bed. Better get along there!

Dunedainn on April 6, 2013 at 12:06 AM

The beginning of sterilization. The Nazi’s could not have dreamed up a better solution.

kregg on April 6, 2013 at 7:02 AM

Considering what the “MB” stands for, I’m not sure NAMBLA cares much about teen pregnancy.

Allahpundit on April 5, 2013 at 2:55 PM

They care about normalizing sex between adults and children. Any case that promotes the cause will do just fine for them.

So a 12 year old permitted to get an abortion or a morning after pill without parental notification or consent, is obviously a child old enough to “consent” to have sex, right? And if a girl at age 12 can, why not a boy?

Hot, blonde teacher has sex with 14-15 year old and society says “Nice”, then that’s one more step for NAMBLA. After all, being gay is all the rage now, isn’t it? What difference does a few years in age make?

Saltyron on April 6, 2013 at 8:20 AM

If real gun control had been implemented, Sandy Hook could not have happened. Those guns got into his hands because his mother purchased them. All legal and nice like. Had she not been able to do so, because gun shops didn’t exist,(whoa, there’s a thought) she, not being a criminal, wouldn’t have had them for her crazy son to play with.

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

I saw we all get together and “control” keep the change’s First Amendment right to free speech. His ideas, ignorance and stupidity are dangerous and shouldn’t be spread on social media like this blog.

See? Rights grabbed, and problem solved!

Saltyron on April 6, 2013 at 8:25 AM

What legally binding contract? You asked if 16 year old could buy a car. Yes, they can. You don’t need a contract to buy a car.

segasagez on April 5, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Oh my Gawd are you clueless. Thread over.

ANY purchase is an “agreement”, a “contract” to buy and sell. You don’t always need a paper document, it can be an oral agreement. But even a car purchase normally requires a bill of sale and a change of title evidencing purchase. Even if it’s done by private owners, if a kid is below the age of consent it’s voidable.

Saltyron on April 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM

No, you can’t murder whomever you please. But you can terminate an embryo in your uterus. You can’t terminate someone else’s embryo.

See, the difference?

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

In Pennsylvania, it is a MURDER of an unborn child to punch a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. It’s called the Crimes Against the Unborn Act. Yes, a crime punishable by life or capital punishment. It’s statutorily defined as a MURDER. Not an unwanted abortion. The statute provides exceptions to that MURDER to the mother and her doctor. So, if she punches herself and causes a miscarriage, why that’s a right to choose. But if her boyfriend or someone else on the street punches her, then it’s murder of their unborn child.

Nice try. Try again.

Saltyron on April 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

But there is no contract. Implied or otherwise. A transaction does not necessarily mean that their is an implied contract. For example, if I buy a pencil from you, that’s it. Transaction over. No contract.

segasagez on April 5, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Oh Gawd THAT IS A CONTRACT! An agreement to buy and sell, in that case, with simple terms. Our contract is you want a pencil, I supply it, you give me consideration, I give you the pencil. That is a contract – it doesn’t have to be for a term of years, or have every detailed clause laid out in writing. If You give me the money, and I refuse delivery, well, I can just keep the money and not give you the pencil. Or give you a stick of wood with no lead. After all, we had no agreement or contract, it was just an incomplete or failed transaction! So how can there be a breach!?

Definitions:

A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between or among them. The elements of a contract are “offer” and “acceptance” by “competent persons” having legal capacity who exchange “consideration” to create “mutuality of obligation.”[1]

Proof of some or all of these elements may be done in writing, though contracts may be made entirely orally or by conduct. The remedy for breach of contract can be “damages” in the form of compensation of money or specific performance enforced through an injunction. Both of these remedies award the party at loss the “benefit of the bargain” or expectation damages, which are greater than mere reliance damages, as in promissory estoppel. The parties may be natural persons or juristic persons. A contract is a legally enforceable promise or undertaking that something will or will not occur. The word promise can be used as a legal synonym for contract,[2] although care is required as a promise may not have the full standing of a contract, as when it is an agreement without consideration.

Saltyron on April 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM

What else do you have, Bishop? You are so much more entertaining when you aren’t trying to be serious. Court jester is your role, here, not court attorney.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

I’m guessing what you seldom notice is that Bishop hands your ass to you (often) making a valid point using humor.

Not sure you’ve ever made a point that was not instantly inane and refutable.

hawkdriver on April 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM

was ‘lucky’ enough to come down with shingles when I was 21. As a parting ‘gift’, it left me w/ nerve damage in my right ring finger. The only thing that helps the pain is Lyrica. I transferred my script to my Wally-and when I picked it up today I had to show ID and fill out a controlled-substance form.
I’m 42!
A kid can get plan B w/o a problem?
WTF?!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 5, 2013 at 10:27 PM

.
What actually is funniest about it is that it is emergency birth control, but birth control isn’t available over the counter…

melle1228 on April 5, 2013 at 10:32 PM

.
Requiring the current generation of adolescents (and pre-adolescents) to get parents permission, or a prescription, or show ID … is an impediment to Agenda 21.

NOTHING shall stand in the way of Agenda 21.
.

The beginning of sterilization. The Nazi’s could not have dreamed up a better solution.

kregg on April 6, 2013 at 7:02 AM

.
Well, yeah … but they’re doing it with the consent (presumed) of the sex-starved adolescents (and pre-adolescents), so it’s a kinder gentler ‘Final Solution’/Agenda 21.

Doesn’t that make you feel better? … No, me neither.

listens2glenn on April 6, 2013 at 9:35 AM

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM
That’s reenactments, dumb$h!t.

Hey, you hear that? I think your cousin’s calling you to bed. Better get along there!

Dunedainn on April 6, 2013 at 12:06 AM

keepthechange, here’s what I’m talking about. I’d like to state Dunedainn is a super genius because he caught this, but alas, most people are able to disassemble your trite in much the same manner.

(Great job none the less, DD!)

Additionally Wile E. Keepthechange, it’s redundant to state “front-loading musket”. They’re all front loading. If you had even an inkling of a clue, you would have referred to the process as “muzzle-loading”. You “front-load” a washing machine or dryer; which is the only weapon I’d trust a liberal with.

(And if by some remote chance ktc, you’re referencing a literal recreation, you might be on to something. You liberals are really pushing it hard.)

hawkdriver on April 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM

I thought we were the party of less government?! And it is NOT an abortion pill. Cmon now and move along people.

jayhawkboilermaker on April 5, 2013 at 7:02 PM

It is absolutely an abortion pill, because it works to prevent implantation of the embryo.

The_Jacobite on April 6, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Plan B is easier to get than Sudafed. Maybe they’ll put it next to the Pez dispensers and the kids will have a big choice to make. How did we slip so far in such a short time?

Kissmygrits on April 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Can’t wait till we hear about vindictive use of this; but, we probably will not as on other issues.

Sell stock in Trojan…no longer needed with the Plan B Roofies. Buy stock in STD/STI/VD related companies.

John Kettlewell on April 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Buy stock in STD/STI/VD related companies.

John Kettlewell on April 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I’d say that sound advice considering the level of government aid and backing drug research like that gets. We all paid for the AIDS/HIV epidemic.

hawkdriver on April 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

If real gun control had been implemented, Sandy Hook could not have happened. Those guns got into his hands because his mother purchased them. All legal and nice like. Had she not been able to do so, because gun shops didn’t exist,(whoa, there’s a thought) she, not being a criminal, wouldn’t have had them for her crazy son to play with.

The only guns conservatives really need are the front-loading muskets. Then they can do those civil war recreations.

keep the change on April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Gee, great idea.

So if drugs are made illegial, then people who are dedicated in purchasing drugs wouldn’t get them, right?

Oh wait…

…..never mind.

itsspideyman on April 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM

The charlatanic swine

If the Obama administration appeals Korman’s ruling, it could re-ignite a simmering cultural battle over women’s reproductive health — never far from the surface in American politics — sidetracking the president just as he’s trying to keep Congress and the public focused on gun control, immigration and resolving the nation’s budget woes.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:06 PM

How about vending machines?

rbruning on April 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

How about vending machines?

rbruning on April 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM

It could happen. Japan already has definitely weirder if not worse things in vending machines.

MelonCollie on April 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM

It could happen. Japan already has definitely weirder if not worse things in vending machines.

MelonCollie on April 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Oh, Japan…

Dunedainn on April 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Welcome to the jungle..

Electrongod on April 6, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Maybe even make a gummy bear chewable version. Heck why not. yes this was meant to sound SICK because the whole idea of irrespobsible sex IS.

johnnyU on April 6, 2013 at 10:52 PM

So let me get this strait. A 9 yr old can now get a morning after pill, but CANNNOT buy birth control pills?

Where is sandra fluke?

Freddy on April 7, 2013 at 7:48 PM

I heard one children’s advocate describe the open availability of morning after pills as the incest pill

And so it would be.

Those pills are hard on the body. I feel sorry for the victims there will be.

A man raping a young step daughter, could pay someone at the corner bar to get him a pill to feed his victim. It will happen.

entagor on April 8, 2013 at 12:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4