Florida teens may be blocked from birth control, STI treatment without parental consent
A bill entitled "Parental Rights" (SB 1288) by Sen. Erin Grall, R-Fort Pierce, which has passed through its first two committees, would nullify an existing state law that allows for a physician to prescribe birth control or STI treatment for those under 18.
But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) supports 'confidential" care, as "it is even more crucial for adolescents because the lack of confidentiality can be a barrier to the delivery of reproductive health care services." This includes confidentiality in billing and insurance claims.
According to guidance provided by ACOG: 'Even though policies should encourage and facilitate communication between a minor and her parent or guardian when appropriate, legal barriers and deference to parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed contraceptive care for adolescents who request confidential services.'
Dr. Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, said based on her clinical experience, what patients tell her when their parents step out of the room is often different from what is said in front of them.
'I want to ask every single person in that (legislature) if they would call up their mother and tell their mother every single thing they've done sexually in their life,' Oelschlager told the USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida.
'It's not uncommon for adolescents to hold back information from their parents," she added. "It's part of respecting boundaries between a parent and a child.'
Grall stood by her position that if a child has an STI and needs treatment, a parent should know. A more hardline earlier version of the bill originally required parental consent for just STI testing, but lawmakers amended the bill, allowing minors to get tested for STIs without parental consent.
'I believe their needs can be best met with parenting. I get that it's hard, and I get that everything's not perfect, but it doesn't mean we say 'OK government, you can do better,' ' Grall said at a recent Senate committee meeting.
The bill would not prevent a minor from buying birth control or emergency contraception over the counter, like condoms or Plan B. It does, however, penalize with a misdemeanor charge any health care provider who prescribes birth control pills or related medication without a parent or guardian's consent.
'You could have a child that has HIV, and you would not be informed as a parent. You could have a child that has syphilis who needs certain types of treatment. That treatment could interact with other things that that child either has, a reaction to, an allergy to … and those are things that parents know. A provider may not know, and a parent should know when a child is getting treatment,' Grall said.
At the first committee hearing in the Senate, Grall said she did not consult with medical professionals when drafting the original policy.
From 2017 to 2021, syphilis rates rose 82% in Florida and increased 72% nationwide, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Congenital syphilis, which occurs when syphilis is passed to a baby during pregnancy, rose 88% in Florida during this time period, and 219% nationwide.
Chlamydia and gonorrhea are often asymptomatic, Oelschlager said, and left untreated can lead to life-changing consequences.
In women, untreated chlamydia and gonorrhea cause inflammation in the cervix, which can travel up into the uterus and into the fallopian tubes. Patients can get intense inflammation, infection and scarring from the untreated STIs. Oelschlager said she's had adolescent patients admitted to the hospital because of severe infections.
"I understand the need to want to make sure my children are healthy and safe, and I also want to know if they're in a dangerous situation or if they've been hurt, but also understand they're never going to tell me everything that they would tell their doctor about their private sexual lives,' Oelschlager said.
Ana Goñi-Lessan, state watchdog reporter for the USA TODAY Network – Florida, can be reached at agonilessan@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Birth control and parental consent debated in Florida bill
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
28 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court hands down some incomprehensible gobbledygook about canceled federal grants
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration's decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is 'Calvinball jurisprudence,' which appears to be designed to ensure that 'this Administration always wins.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve 'research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer's, and cardiovascular disease,' among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19. A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — 'arbitrary and capricious' in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court's reasoning, ''DEI'—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,' leaving NIH officials 'to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]' regarding which grants should be terminated. According to Jackson, 'the court found, as a factual matter, 'an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women's health issues' and 'pervasive racial discrimination'—indeed, 'palpable' racial discrimination of a sort the judge had 'never seen' in 40 years on the bench.' The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration's policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute. Which court is supposed to hear this case? As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims. In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government's decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay. Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled. If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett's opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing 'claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from 'substantially the same operative facts.'' So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration's broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court. That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired. The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett's opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail. As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to 'euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.' There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson's summary of what appears to be going on here: In a broader sense, however, today's ruling is of a piece with this Court's recent tendencies. '[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints,' the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
Business Wire
2 hours ago
- Business Wire
AAHI Partners with Quratis to Strengthen Global Vaccine Manufacturing and Accelerate Access to Lifesaving Vaccines
SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Access to Advanced Health Institute (AAHI), a global leader in translating high-impact science into scalable, field-ready vaccine solutions, today announced an exciting new partnership with Quratis, a premier biotechnology company and advanced Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization (CDMO). This collaboration marks a pivotal step forward in breaking through barriers in global health equity around the world. Under this strategic alliance, Quratis has been selected as AAHI's preferred manufacturer for high-quality pre-clinical and clinical vaccine supplies, with the capacity to expand into commercial-scale production for global markets. This collaboration will accelerate the development of AAHI's innovative vaccine candidates targeting deadly diseases such as tuberculosis, and of vaccines that rely on AAHI's vaccine adjuvants to provide protection against malaria, HIV, and other global health threats. Quratis brings a world-class GMP-certified bioplant and cutting-edge CDMO expertise in biopharmaceutical raw material development, process optimization, and finished pharmaceutical manufacturing. By designating Quratis as preferred partner, AAHI strengthens both its scientific capabilities and access to scalable, cost-effective production of its groundbreaking vaccine formulations—including dry vaccines that eliminate cold chain dependencies and needle-free delivery systems for superior respiratory protection. The partnership ensures a seamless supply chain platform, enabling swift clinical development and broader deployment to the world's most vulnerable populations. "Partnering with Quratis is a very important step in AAHI's strategy to advance practical, life-saving vaccines, that can be deployed at scale where they're needed most,' said Keeley Foley, CEO of AAHI. 'Quartis' innovative cutting edge, safe, world-class CDMO capabilities makes it possible for AAHI to deliver on our mission – and helps ensure our efforts to combat infectious diseases and foster health autonomy worldwide. Together, we're not just manufacturing vaccines—we're delivering an important mission to revolutionize global health." Quratis, renowned for its global innovation in healthcare, brings unparalleled expertise in vaccine development and manufacturing to the table. With a track record of success in TB and COVID-19 vaccines like QTP101 and QTP104, Quratis' advanced processes will enhance AAHI's pipeline, ensuring high-quality, efficient production from pre-clinical stages through clinical trials. "We are honored and thrilled to join forces with AAHI, a pioneer in immune-enhancing technologies and sustainable vaccine solutions," said Soung Joon Kim, CEO of Quratis. "This partnership aligns perfectly with our vision of making people happy and healthy through borderless healthcare innovations. By supporting AAHI's pipeline, we expect to create value not only for global health, but also for our shareholders through long-term growth opportunities.' The partnership builds on existing collaborations, including the co-development of the ID93+GLA-SE tuberculosis vaccine candidate (QTP101), and underscores a shared commitment to strengthening international vaccine supply chains, advancing equitable access, and fostering worldwide manufacturing capacity for sustainable program deployment. For more information about this partnership or to explore collaboration opportunities, and order pre clinical materials please contact info@ About Access to Advanced Health Institute (AAHI) Access to Advanced Health Institute (AAHI) is a global leader in developing practical, cost-effective vaccines to combat deadly diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV. With a mission to translate high-impact science into scalable, field-ready solutions, AAHI breaks through barriers in global health by creating innovative vaccine formulations, building worldwide manufacturing capacity, and fostering partnerships to ensure sustainable, equitable health outcomes. For more information, visit or contact us at info@ About Quratis Quratis Inc. is a leading biopharmaceutical company specializing in innovative vaccine development and advanced biologics manufacturing. With a state-of-the-art GMP facility and strong global partnerships, Quratis is at the forefront of developing next-generation vaccines against infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, COVID-19, schistosomiasis, and neglected tropical diseases. In addition to its core vaccine pipeline, Quratis offers superior CDMO capabilities, including expertise in mRNA–LNP drug delivery platforms that provide seamless bench-to-field support from research through commercial production. By combining cutting-edge R&D with scalable manufacturing, Quratis is committed to delivering high-quality, accessible, and life-saving solutions to patients worldwide. For more information, visit
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism'
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt. The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants it contends advance diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or promote 'gender ideology extremism.' By a 5-4 vote, the justices lifted an order a federal court judge in Boston issued forcing the National Institutes of Health to restore funding for more than 1,700 grants focused on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, alcohol and substance abuse and mental health issues. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt.
