U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has over-ruled the recommendations of the FDA and ‘the morning after’ pill (or Plan B) will not be made available to everyone as an OTC product. Girls must be 17 years or older to buy the product without a prescription.
From Huffington Post:
The Food and Drug Administration recommended on Wednesday that Plan B One-Step, commonly referred to as the “morning-after pill,” be made available over the counter without age restrictions, but an Obama administration official overturned that recommendation.
After ten months of reviewing scientific data, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg decided on Wednesday that emergency contraception should be made available to everyone over the counter.
“There is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential,” she said in a statement.
But in a surprising and unprecedented move, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent Hamburg a memo on Wednesday invoking her authority to veto the Plan B decision, based on the reasoning that adolescent girls may not have the behavioral maturity to understand how to use the morning after pill.
“The science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use,” Sebelius said in a statement. “However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. I do not believe that Teva’s application met that standard.”
So basically the Obama administration, through his agent Kathleen Sebelius, threw the women of America under the bus. Or did he? It depends on who you ask. The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to evaluate all drugs on a scientific basis. Politics and emotions are not supposed to have any part in decision-making. However, isn’t that just what happened? Sebelius’s decision seems like a social position rather than a scientific one.
Trouble has been brewing for Teva Pharmaceuticals since 2005. The FDA has been taken to court during the Bush years for foot dragging.
The American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all strongly endorsed over-the-counter access to Plan B with no age restrictions, so that emergency contraception could be found on pharmacy shelves as easily as Tylenol. But the FDA suspiciously delayed the decision in 2005, and then decided in 2006 to approve the drug without a prescription only for women 18 and older.
A U.S. District Judge ruled in 2009 that the FDA had “repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons” and forced the FDA to lower the age to 17 and re-review the rationale for its decision. Teva Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures the pill, filed a new application in February of this year to re-label Plan B as over the counter.
Any OTC product can be misused. The idea that ‘the morning after pill’ makes rape easier is pure bunk. Younger women probably know more of the do’s and don’t of using a product like this than older women do. Furthermore, it would be quite easy to put the Tevo product behind the counter so it had to be asked for. That way pharmacists who cares could provide a little information. The women’s groups and health care advocates are outraged over what they perceive as a betrayal.
“We are outraged that this Administration has let politics trump science,” said Kirsten Moore, president and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. “There is no rationale for this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the Commissioner’s own letter. Unbelievable.”
“We had every confidence that this Bush-era policy would come to an end,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The Obama administration has broken a key promise to the American people that it would base its decisions on sound science and what’s in the best interest of women’s health. In short, this is a failure to deliver change.”
Anti-abortion groups, who have long argued that increasing access to Plan B could pose health risks to young girls and encourage men to rape them by making it easier to cover up the evidence, said they were relieved by the decision.
This decision could backfire on President Obama. He should expect fallout at the polls for continuing this Bush administration plan. Too many professionals have given the green light to this product based on science, which is supposed to be the criteria used for evaluation. I await his stutter stammer on this one.
See product details
This is sort of a chicken crap way of handling this issue. In the first place, anyone 17 or older can buy the product. A girl in need could ask her mother, an older sister, or friend, or get a fake ID.
I have mixed emotions on this subject. Emotions should not be a part of the decision. That isn’t how we approve drugs.
If it were my daughter, I would want to know if she was taking medicine. However, the realist in me knows I won’t always have that option. If we truly want to prevent unintended, unwanted pregnancy, then we need to do all in our power to prevent prenancy and give those whose responsibility it is the power to do so. That means a full range of contraception should be available to all people of reproductive age. That means the nanny state needs to back off, which includes Sebelius and Obama.
Obama gets no pass on this one.
Amen to that, Moon!
I think the most problematic pregnancies are those to young teenagers. They don’t have the education or work experience to provide for a child. Too many expect little responsibility but a lot of love from a young child. Too often the mother comes from a home that doesn’t offer much support either. I think it’s best that these teens have access to contraception.
The Obama admin. was going to get grief from conservatives who would claim that parents should have control over what medication their dependent daughters could have access to. I see this decision as a compromise (which the Repubs will decry anyway). But, as you say, many of the teens will find a way around their parents either by using a false ID or having someone else make the purchase.
If this had happened under Bush the left would be screaming. I read a fairly neutral report on the issue. I think what bothers me is that this was “political” decision not a medical decision.
Apparently the study was pretty darn conclusive that this was not a dangerous “drug” to take over the counter. I would want to know if my daughter was pregnant, especially if she were 16 or younger. What if it were a result of date rape? I hope I have the kind of relationship where my daughter could and would talk to me.
I think I feel like throwing up just thinking about my daughter being the age to even GET pregnant 🙁 For now she is still my baby (even if she is 6)
Were you all “Hope”-ing for a “Change” in the policy? 🙂
I am tired of reproductive health being overridden by politics. It has nothing to do with hope and change. It has to do with common sense.
Where is Lafayette to post the luv boats video. Del. Marshall wanted to keep college women of JMU from having the morning after pill in the school health center.
Why do we even have an FDA?
Corporations should be able to sell whatever they want to the public at our grocery stores.
That would certainly reduce the population in a hurry. Have a little more fen fen. Have you had your thalidamide today?
I am assuming that statement was a joke.
Not really. Isn’t that what’s being asked here? For anyone to be able to go into a Target – regardless of age, sex, mental status or authorization from a healthcare worker to buy a product?
Right?
Marinm,
You buy Plan B just like tylenol. ALL with FDA approval which is the point we are making here.
Just so there is clarity, Plan B is in case you might be pregnant. If you have failed protection you have to take this within 72 hours to prevent implantation IF it had occcured. No one will know whether they were pregnant or not, not dissimalar to the IUD process. It prevents implantation.
Again, for clarity. I SUPPORT plan B sale to anyone.
I’m just saying let’s get rid of the FDA because it’s obviously not providing a value add.
But, I am making clear that regardless of age, sex, mental status, or approval from a healthcare worker (or a parent) that we’re good with people buying this off the shelf.
Why do we have age limits on buying guns too? Let’s get rid of those as well. Old enough for plan B old enough to own a H&K, I say!
@marinm
yes but a product that has been screened for safety. It isn’t just setting out something laced with arsenic.
Science became laced with politics in the case of Plan B.
I suggest you read up on what FDA does and has done over the decades. I can’t imagine dispensing with it.
Why don’t we let 6 year olds drive cars?
You are mixing apples and oranges when you talk about ingesting a drug vs owning a weapon and many of us have no idea what an H & K is.
@Moon-howler
When you say “screened for safety” what are you really saying? That the number of side effects is zero?
Now devils advocate here. What if a side effect triggers on a young person that consumes this medicine. Who is responsible? The minor? Do we throw the parents in jail for abuse because they didn’t know what their kids were buying and consuming? Blame the store? Blame the drug co.?
I’m all for personal responsibility but let’s not half ass it. If everyone here wants this on the market (again I am agreeing with y’all) then lets not just carve out an exception for this. Let’s open up the flood gates on a lot of things while we’re at it.
I agree that politics has been laced with science and has been a big issue at FDA for a long time. So, lets get rid of them. I’m confident that Teva Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer have my best interests at heart.
I thought 6 year olds could legally drive on farms?
H&K = Heckler and Koch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch
Marinm,
Very interesting story today on a the “fox watching the henhous”.
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20111205_ap_fdarevisitssafetyofnewerbirthcontroldrugs.html
On Tuesday, a judge unsealed several court documents suggesting Bayer may have withheld data from FDA about the blood clots risks of its drugs. The documents stem from expert opinion gathered by personal injury lawyers suing Bayer on behalf of patients.
According to one document, Bayer drafted a white paper in 2004 to address “FDA concerns,” about clots with Yasmin. An early draft indicated that reports of blood clots with Yasmin were significantly higher than those for three other oral contraceptives. But that information was not included in the final paper submitted to the FDA, and instead the company said a more definitive study of blood clot risk would be forthcoming. That study did not show an increased risk.
“Based on the information that I have reviewed, and it is my opinion, that Bayer presented a selective view of the data, and that presentation obscured the potential risks associated with Yasmin,” wrote Dr. David Kessler, a former FDA commissioner, in his expert testimony. Kessler was paid for his time and opinion by the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
in case you don’t know, Yasmin is birth control. So the idea that pharmuecuetical companies will police themselves is not based on reality when profits are their driving goal.
Elena, so what your saying is that not only do we need an FDA but these girls SHOULD go through a DR and get a script to purchase this drug?
Because we don’t want any side effects occuring without having a learned professional know about that unique persons case, right?
So, Obama did right?
I do believe much of the contraversy results from confusion between RU486, and the Morning After Pill. The former is considered an abortifacient, while the latter is classified as a contraceptive. Chemically, they are very different, and what happens in the body, very different as well. As someone who does not oppose all artifical contraception I don’t see this pill as “moral or immoral”.
Whether or not it should be sold OTC to anyone, no questions asked, is another matter, altogether. These are hormones, the same ones contained in regular oral contraceptives. They can have very profound effects on a teenaged girls physiology. Women must have a perscription for oral contraceptives, and this perscription is issued by a qualified physician. Chemically, these pills are exactly the same, the only difference being dosage. As a parent, I wouldn’t want my daughter to be able to just walk in and buy these. “But Steeeevvve, teens can go buy condoms!!!!” Correct. but unless you have an allergy to latex, condom use does not have a physiological effect on the body. Hormones do. Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is a controled substance, and a physician can perscribe this for a person, to correct some deficiency. I wouldn’t want my teen daughter to be able to walk into CVS and buy this OTC either, because she wants to dominate on the basketball court, or is tired of being “the short girl”. Now please don’t think I am comparing “being short” to “being pregnant” as some equivilant crisis. As a parent of a little girl (Elena, I am with you. I am anticipating getting gray much more rapidly starting in about 8 or 9 years) , I wouldn’t want these pills so easily available, and not just for moral reasons. I mean, minors can’t buy certain cold medicines, that are sold OTC, because they are frequently abused. I have to show an ID and have my purchase logged and tracked, when I buy pseudofed (the real stuff that works, not that lousey substitute), because some people cook it into meth. In this case, I think the Obama administration made the right call, regardless of the motivations.
Steve, I would agree with you if the FDA had not given it the green light from a scientific point of view. Their criteria is supposed to involve science and nothing more. No political or social issues. I am not a scientist so I trust the FDA on this one.
Oddly enough, age of majority doesn’t seem to be the issue. The cut off of 17 or older. Of course, any kid with a mother, sister or older friend can get the pill if they need to. So I figure they aren’t really protected. Its just that the Obama administration didn’t follow the rules, which was no politics,. Only science.
And what’s wrong with this picture? I am spanking Obama and you and letting him go outside to play. Hmmmmm…the world has turned upside down.
Glad you clarified being short, I was ready to take offense 🙂
Elena,
As long as someones legs reach the ground, I figure they are plenty tall enough.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
Did you get queasy with the whole earth’s rotation being interrupted thing? Hate it when that happens to me.
Regarding the “science” of it. Let’s look at this logically. Science says this product, with a dosage of X, requires a perscription from a physician, so a woman can purchase, because these hormones have known impacts on the woman’s physiology. Science also says this product, with a much higher dosage of the same hormones is completely safe, and should be available to any female of childbearing age, OTC. Do you see a disconnect here?
I haven’t really studied the science of it because I haven’t exptrapolated it yet. I would like to see the Obama explanation. If there was a problem, why did the FDA approve it? I do know that as more is known about a product, it can become OTC. Many allergy pills have done this as has my favorite, Zantac.
I just don’t like the potential politics of this situation. Its either safe or it isn’t. I smell politics.
And yes, the earth rotational issue did make me very queasy.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
How many times has the reverse happened? The FDA approves a drug, like Fen-Phen, it is widely perscribed, and then bad things are found. Things like peoples heart valves exploding. The FDA had previously approved it. It was declared “safe”. Then they had to turn around later and “recommend it no longer be perscribed”. Now let the lawsuits begin. Imagine if this drug had eventually been declared “Safe for OTC”. Anyone can buy it, without a perscription, regardless of age. How many girls and boys suffering from a “poor body image” would rush out an buy it, in an attempt to lose weight? Tons. Result: lots of young, damaged hearts. Ephedra wasn’t even regulated, because the FDA viewed it as a “nutritional supplement”. It was in everything. Energy drinks. Weightloss pills. You name it. Wasn’t until young, otherwise healthy people started having strokes that the FDA took a look at it., and it was eventually banned in all OTC products. Too late to unring that bell. I haven’t even touched on the parental rights issues. Like I said: regardless of the motivation, the Obama admin made the right call…whoa…did you feel that?
Oh yea…definite tremors. Hell, I can’t even type. You have a credible point and I don’t deny it. The FDA isn’t all knowing. Hopefully, it gets better over time.
They have had 6 years to quite fooling around with this. Why did Obama and Sebelius have them go through all the motions just to pull the rug out from under them? They had to know this was in the works because of the court intervention under the Bush administration.
I don’t think parental rights even should enter in to this. I don’t think a parent has the right to put their kid at risk for pregnancy. But that’s just me….You can buy everything from asperin to laxitives in a drug store. Asperin is incredibly dangerous for kids because of reyes syndrome. That is still sold.
There are no easy answers. The Obama administration should have pulled the plug long before this if that was their intention. I have not seen a statement yet.
Interesting points Steve, I don’t disagree with your premise.
I would add that laxatives can be incredibly dangerous, and yet young girls could buy them without a prescription (weight loss tool).
I believe this issue is ALL about the social ramifications. In all liklihood, young girls would get their older friends to buy plan b anyway so this point is probably mute anyway.
Young people get adults to buy alcohol and cigarettes for them now, but no rational person would argue we should allow sales of these products to anyone, regardless of age. And say insanity did happen, and this was allowed. A parent, knowing the potential dangers involved, forbids their child to smoke or drink, while still a minor under their care. Parental rights issue? How about tatoos? Age regulated. Piercing requires parental consent. Unless I am mistaken, it is now illegal for minors to use tanning beds.
To Moon’s point regarding “Parental Rights”, Parent’s rights should be strengthened, not diminished. My child. My responsibility. Yes, in a civil society there must be rational limits on what a parent can do, and we have them. You cannot criminally abuse or neglect your child. You must provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, within your means. You can be held liable for the acts of your children, and sued in civil court. You cannot willfully contribute to the delinquency of your child, by involving them in a criminal action. But I strongly disagree with your statement that “No parent should have the right to put their child at risk of pregnancy”. A minor, by definition, is not legally able to do lots of things. They can’t sign binding contracts, for example. They can’t go and get themselves a passport. They can’t legally leave the country, without parental consent. They can’t sign the medical forms required for elective surgery, and there are very specific exigency requirements that must be met before ANY medical procedure can be performed, without parental consent. Why? As legal custodian for the child, the law recognizes that they are not capable of making many decisions, because they are minors. Until that custodial relationship is legally passed to another adult, or the child is legally emancipated from the parent, this custodial guardianship survives. Or to put it in more simple terms: When I was young, any child could walk into any convenience store, and purchase cigarettes. There were cigarette machines on the street, where 55 cents was all it took to get a pack of Luckies. My mother used to send me to the store for smokes all the time. My sister bought her first pack at 13. Many of the girls I went to elementary, Junior and Senior High smoked, and so did the guys. We even had a courtyard in the school where all the smokers could go, in between classes. A few years ago, it became illegal for kids to purchase cigarettes, or even possess tobacco. Now why do we think this is? Do you think the parents of the kids I grew up with wished their kids couldn’t just walk into a store, and buy a pack of smokes? I’ll bet you the responsible ones did.
And if someone buys my kid alcohol or cigarettes, or the morning afterpill, while I am still her legal guardian, they had better move to the moon…because there isn’t a place on this earth where you can hide and I won’t eventually find you.
Steve, let me play devil’s advocate for a few minutes. First off, don’t say ‘my child would never..’ Those are fools words. Its hard to figure out a kid’s mind. You don’t know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your kid will always come to you with everything. You just can’t know. They have minds of their own.
Let’s move it off your kid or my kid and to some one else’s kid. Suppose a kid, raised in a good home, goes to a party, and gets talked into drinking a little booze. She goes to sleep and meanwhile some lout has sex with her. I call that rape and you do too. But this kid thinks she did something wrong, is embarrassed, and doesn’t want to tell her parents. If that were my kid, I would want her to get Plan B real fast rather than risk pregnancy. The person I would want to kill would be the sperm donor, not the person who got the kid Plan B.
I have found out over the years it is just best not to be too dogmatic about what I would or would not do. Now, I am looking at hindsight and that is a whole lot different than foresight.
I agree that parents need more authority. However, I just don’t think that is where I would draw my line in the sand.
Let’s talk about my statement, “No parent should have the right to put their child at risk of pregnancy.” How could you disagree with that? That is where parental rights end. No one has the right to put anyone else at risk of pregnancy. Think about what you are saying. No woman is someone’s brood mare.
Remember, we are talking prevention here. Before the fact. We aren’t talking abortion.
@marinm
marin – you would take a corporations word that its drugs are safe?? Like, people’s funds were safe with Madoff and MF Global?? Look at all the wight loss products that are on the market – and do not work.
Is this FDA overkill and complicated – Yes. Get rid of it, and trust a corporation – NO. Look at Fen-Fen and other drugs that did make it through the process.
@Pat.Herve
One might also like to look at where the term snake oil salesman comes from.
@Pat.Herve
Ok, so I can understand this. You don’t trust corporations (yet you consume their products I would assume) and yet you trust a government agency [FDA] that bases it’s decisions only data provided to it by those corporations you don’t trust?
Mind you, I agree with y’all with your idea that 8 year olds should be able to buy this product at the local Wal-Mart but am pointing out that the repercussions of such have probably not been well thought out.
I tried to wade through all of this and having some problems with much of what has been said. I may have missed it but no one has said anything about a parent’s responsibiliity for teaching morals to their children or for establishing a trusting relationship between parents and children so that a child is willing to come to a parent with a question about perhaps being date raped. Are these not important? Or is it all about politics vs science? Or business vs science?
As to the FDA–I can’t believe some of the statements here about doing away with the FDA. It is blatantly obvious that people don’t understand the difference between clinical trials and use in the general population. While I am not going to take the time to research the cases, there is a long history of clinical trials indicating (STRONG EMPHASIS ON INDICATING) that a drug is safe only to find out later that when the drug is released to the general public where there are literally millions of possibilities for adverse reactions to a drug do we find out that the clinical trials were wrong. And keep in mind that the clinical trials are most often conducted by the manufacturer–not the FDA. The FDA is often the receiver of information on which to make a REASONED judgement.
No one has offered any proof that Secretary Sebelius’ decision was “political”. From where I sit, it seems to me to be a common sense issue with a common sense decision. If we don’t trust young people under certain ages to make sound judgements, why is this any different?
Except for his loquaciousness and a couple of stupid comments about the FDA, Steve is kinda close to right.
As for marinm, his head seems to be in the usual place.
This is not a new drug. It has been available in rx form for a long time. It has been OTC for those 17 and older for several years. Plan B was available with an rx.
Here is the link. There are other types of emergency contraception. I am not sure if they are over the counter or not.
http://www.planbonestep.com/description-plan-b.aspx
Back when I was in undergrad at Marymount, I chose to do my internship at Planned Parenthood (yes, a catholic school offered internship placement at Planned Parenthood). There were no abortions done there, it was all well woman care, STD treatment, birth control, pregnancy testing/counseling, and HIV testing/counseling.
It was common practice for them to prescribe an “overdose” of specific birth control pills to women who had experienced an “oops” during sex. The morning after pill has been applied in some form or another for at least two decades. This is not new science.
since the 1970’s high doses of estrogen have been used to prevent implantation. These are not growth hormones, they are estrogen hormones.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2804496.html
Some interesting reading: http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b But only if you want to know the whole story.
“I may have missed it but no one has said anything about a parent’s responsibiliity for teaching morals to their children or for establishing a trusting relationship between parents and children so that a child is willing to come to a parent with a question about perhaps being date raped. Are these not important?”
George,
I think these are of paramount importance, and I believe one of the greatest responsibilities of a parent. My child should feel that: #1, I will always put her needs before mine. #2, I will always act with her best interest in mind, even if she doesn’t agree with my decisions or rules. #3, regardless of the severity of the transgression, mistake, or accident, the consequences for telling me will far outweigh those of not telling me. #4 with 1,2, &3, in effect, my help (along with help from others that I give permission to help, ie. doctors, law enforcement, lawyers, teachers) is always for her benefit, and my athority and responsibility is granted by The Highest Power. #5 Folks that hurt her or meddle in my parental authority will face physical or legal consquences commensurate with their role in such action, and within my means to mete out.
Moon and Elena,
If I haven’t been clear, let me state that I don’t consider this a “RTL vs. Choice” issue. If we were discussing RU486, then this would be a different matter. This is contraception, and I do not oppose contraception on religous or moral grounds. This is a parental rights vs. rights of minors issue. Suppose Moon’s scenario has played out, and all parental safegaurds have failed (She went to the party where alcohol or drugs were present. She consumed alcohol willingly, or someone dropped a roofie in her soda. She was assualted by some soon-to-be-dead-if-I-get-to-him-before-the-law-does guy, or has consensual, unprotected, or protect-but-failed sex with some dreamy, soon-to-be-scared-out-of-his-skin guy. If Mrs. T and I have done our jobs, she should realize she has made a mistake and tell one of us. If she chooses to tell her mom only, to spare some people some pain, or save her father some potential legal entanglements, and her Mom decides to purchase it for her, then this is something for her Mom and I to work out. If she has made an error in judgment, or been a victim, she hasn’t compounded things by covering anything up, and at least one of her parents has exercised parental authority.
If she does, we, as parents can make a responsible decision and go get emergency contraception, and ALSO, screened for an STD. Would her “well-meaing” 17 year old have her best interest in mind to get a screening? See, this is where that whole parental rights thing comes into play? Do you see where lessening potential consequences of bad decisions might contribute to these bad decisions? You don’t have to have a degree in child growth and development to know that kids don’t make the best decisions: “Should I have sex or wait? If I wait, I don’t have to worry about a pregnancy or STD. If I decide to have sex, should I use protection? If the protection fails, I can go get plan b, walk right in and buy it. But I’m only 15. Well, I can ask suzie’s older sister, she’s cool, or better yet, Bobby. He’s 17 and so cute, because there’s no need for a perscription… What would Mom and Dad say? Oh, I’m not going to worry about that, because they can’t find out, and Bobby is sooooo cute…Hey, wait-a-minute…I’ve always wanted to be on the pill, but didn’t want my folks to know I’m active, and needed a perscription. If Bobby can just walk into the store and buy this, and I take it everytime we have sex…..”
@Steve Thomas
And that is a very wonderful set of values and responsibilities for a parent to assume. I wish all did. However, many times kids don’t come forth with things not because of fear of you but fear of disappointing you.
There are many reasons. Now here is a question. At what age does this responsibility stop? That is the tricky part. The protection and regard for welfare doesn’t really stop on one’s child’s 18th birthday. However, your ability to really act on your feelings changes a great deal. Actually the change starts before then.
When I was growing up, you weren’t an adult until age 21. There was something to be said for that, looking back on it. My parents had the authority over me until that 21st birthday. That time between 18 and 21 gave a kid some time to grow up. You weren’t quite fish and you weren’t quite fowl. The good thing about it was you didn’t have kids reaching the age of majority unless they were really dumb, while still in high school Schools had much more control then. So did colleges.
That 26 Amendment was sure full of unintended consequences. But I digress….
@Steve Thomas
Steve, I don’t disagree with your scenarios or your logic. Your biggest fear should be that she doesn’t want to disappoint you or put you in harm’s way because you hunted some soon-to-die young punk down and did the right and just thing.
Every kid doesn’t have responsible, caring parents. Too many kids have parents who have abrogated their responsibilities, probably long before this issue even comes up.
Your kid probably won’t run into the situation and if she does, in all likelihood she will immediately seek the help of her mom and dad. There are no guarantees.
Let’s go back to the kid who doesn’t have the parental support that your child does. I want that kid to be able to have a choice. Kids can buy all sorts of questionable things in drug stores. Hopefully, a responsible pharmacy would have Plan B behind the counter.
My main concern on this issue is that the plan was for this product to be released without age restrictions. The issue had been taken to court. It was sandbagged at the last minute by one person in an unorthodox move. Had the Obama administration not wanted the age restriction lifted, they could have saved everyone time and money and just directed the FDA to stop the process. They waited until the 11th hour.
As for clarity, I knew it wasn’t an RTL issue with you. However, it is with some people, starting with my very own delegate Bob. Any morning after pill is considered an abortifacient because it might prevent implantation. I find his stand objectionable and based on his religion, not on what the American people want.
I have put up a new thread containing the Obama response. He is thinking like a Dad and calling it common sense. It is common sense…for kids who have parents who are there for their kids. It is common sense for the Obamas and the Thomases and the Howlers. It isn’t common sense for everyone.
“Except for his loquaciousness and a couple of stupid comments about the FDA, Steve is kinda close to right.”
George Harris,
If I said anything inaccurate, or as you put it “stupid”, regarding the FDA, please be a tad more specific. I am not advocating for abolishing the FDA. Far from it. What I am saying is this: using FDA approval as the basis for an agrument in favor of lessening restrictions on the availability of a drug, ignores the fact that FDA, like any organization run by people, will make errors from time to time. Best to err on the side of caution.
Clear and succinct enough?