Obama FDA Caves on Plan B
by Chris Gacek
April 22, 2009
The Associated Press is reporting today that the Obama Administration has decided to roll over for a federal district court decision issued last month commanding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell the morning-after-pill, Plan B, to 17-year-olds without a prescription.
Typically the Department of Justice (DoJ) would vigorously defend an agency decision – in this case FDA’s restricting Plan B over-the-counter sales (OTC) to women 18 and over. Here, however, the Obama FDA and DoJ have decided to accept an aggressive court ruling without appeal. In essence, the Administration let a judge make a scientific decision as to when it was safe to sell Plan B over-the-counter.
In order for a drug to be sold OTC patients must be able to safely medicate themselves without medical supervision. FRC has always felt that the studies tracking the label comprehension for Plan B showed a poor awareness that Plan B was not a substitute for standard contraceptives. That would seem to be important for a contraceptive.
The Bush Administration officials were not convinced that the label comprehension data for teens demonstrated that they could use Plan B safely. The Bush officials thought more data needed to be submitted. Not exactly a crazy point of view.
Furthermore, the FDA-approved label for Plan B gives no clear indication that repeated use of Plan B in a short period of time is not safe. This feeds into the possibility that some women might repeatedly use Plan B rather than safer alternatives.
We noted last month that some minor girls will be able to obtain this drug without any guidance from a doctor or without any parental supervision. We lack scientific studies on the long-term effects of Plan B with respect to high dosage and repeated use in both women and adolescents. Also, research from Scotland in the 1990s indicated that the increased use of the morning-after-pill did not decrease abortion rates.
FRC has also pointed out that interaction with medical professionals is a major screening and defense mechanism for victims of sexual abuse. The availability of Plan B over-the-counter also bypasses the routine medical care of sexually active girls and women, which is important to allow screening for other health conditions, including sexually transmitted diseases. This is especially important for teenagers.
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
Christopher, since you’re curious, here’s what we “conservatives” want, some of us, anyway. I use the quote marks because I don’t think of myself as conservative, but as Christian. And human. And reasonably reasonable and intelligent.
We want our children to practice chastity. Chastity is not necessarily or simply complete abstinence; that would be celibacy. Chastity would refer to the proper setting for sexual activity being between husband and wife, and even then, it is not an unlimited free-for-all. Sexuality is a beautiful gift from God and not mere entertainment for which we should merely use another person. Since our children are just that, children, and are not usually married, we want them to not be sexually active until they are married.
As for the unattainability of abstinence, complete or otherwise: what if we applied the same “logic” to other ideals or even rules of behavior? Suppose we had laws against murder, but decided that we’d never get all the people to abstain from murder and so we therefore decided to repeal all laws against murder, since some people are always going to choose to commit it.
Oh, wait, we do have laws against murder, even though there have always been and will always be some who choose to not live up to ideal behavior and choose to murder instead.
And who says we don’t want to care for women and their babies? The pro-life movement includes programs, clinics, and volunteers who work to help and support women who find themselves tempted to opt for abortions of various types, not because they are exercising choice, but because they feel like they have no choice.
Don’t want to educate? Exactly what do you mean by educate? Do you mean: fill children’s heads with distorted ideology that attempts to convince them that they will be happy, fulfilled and free if they engage in unbridled sexual gratification, followed by easily obtained abortion? Is that what you mean by education?
By: Christopher Ronk | April 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I’m curious, what exactly do conservatives want? Complete abstinence? That is unattainable.
They don’t want to care for these mothers and children. They don’t want to educate. Do they have any other ideas?
I’m kind of surprised the courts actually approved this.