A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
not sure what has changed with or conversation and again, i dont know about this issue well at all
so lets reflect.
you dont like the excutive branch (FDA) making decesion about Food and Drugs, correct?
and you didnt answer my questions, yet, any of them.
-how did they violate the rights of the parents?
-does the law specifically say the child must be given the drug if its asked for even against parents will and against non-consent?
-why doesnt your example apply to to every store everywhere for everybody not 18?
-are you suggesting that nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy anything without parental consent?
I have these question because you keep suggesting force and "parent's rights infringement" and im asking what makes that so and what makes this different than anything and everything else a minor could buy.
unless this law says the store has to sell it to the child if they ask for it even against parents will and no consent there is zero interference. And the law might say that im not familiar with it but unless it does theres no interference. It dramatic verbiage he is using.
by that logic every stor everywhere is guilty, should people under 18 not be allowed to buy anything with out parental consent?
We've seen before how new and perfectly safe drugs turn out not to be safe. And the same teenaged girls who are already behaving recklessly may not take Plan B as prescribed. There really is a potential for abuse, and I am concerned because we do not know what the long-term effects will be.
thats what im getting at.
Unless this laws says the store must sell it to them this law doesnt interfere or force anything. The situation hasnt changed in reality, only that another product is on the list of millions that can be bought without parental consent.
Status qou hasnt changed that im aware of, before this law products could be bought by 15yr olds without consent after this law that remains true.
My question to him is what am i missing, it seems like a bunch of hyperbole to me. But i fully admit i could be wrong since im not familiar with this law.
no im fully aware of that part of the change that has no impact on my question.
And your opinion above is also fine by me but it too doesnt address what my post is about.
Wheres the interference, wheres the force, what parental rights are being taken away. I know YOU didnt say that but thats what my post was questioning.
my questions are about the seemingly nonsensical remarks he made about "forcing parents" and "inferring" and "against parents will".
This law to my knowledge doesnt factually do any of that.
what did it change as far as parents rights and will goes. what did it force on them?
Like i said all this law did is add another product to the list of millions that can be bought by a 15yr old.