Was the federal court right to lower age restrictions on Plan B?
Picture if you will: a 17-year-old girl in a pharmacy, the morning after, not a little horrified by her current dilemma. Whatever transpired the night before—carelessness with a boyfriend, date rape, stranger rape—she now finds herself in a race against time to keep from getting pregnant. “Plan B, Plan B” she tells herself, scanning the shelves, remembering that this high-dose birth control can effectively block a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse (although it’s most effective within 24 hours).
Nearly all major industrialized nations have approved Plan B without restrictions for many years, recognizing it’s efficacy in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Now, thanks to Tummino vs. Torti, a recent judgment from the federal district court, the day will soon be here when 17-year-olds won’t have to get a time-wasting prescription for this perfectly safe contraceptive, once erroneously tagged as an abortifacient. Gone are the years of stonewalling and outright lies about the drug used by the Bush Administration to turn the FDA from a science-based to faith-based arm of the government.
The Tummino vs. Torti judgment exposes many “arbitary and capricious” acts masquerading as medical due diligence. With pressure from the White House, the FDA had stalled confirmation of Plan B’s OTC (over the counter) status for years, citing bogus safety concerns.
One particularly egregious tactic was when the administration claimed the OTC-switch advisory committee lacked a “balance of opinion”. ( I guess a cadre of medical and science professionals adept at research and clinical trials was a little too uniform.) Eventually, Right to Life ideologues with far less experience were tossed into the mix. Still, science won out and in 2003 the advisory committee voted 23-4 in favor of eliminating age restrictions on procurement of Plan B. That should have been the end of a long, hard fight, right? Wrong. The FDA rejected this advice, the only OTC-switch recommendation they rejected in10 years.
By approving the lowering of age restrictions on Plan B the court simply recognizes that 17-year-olds with the wherewithal to connect a reckless night with preventative measures deserve our support. What they don’t deserve, even if their judgment often falls short? A bunch of political kowtowing dressed up to look like best-practice medicine.
Was the federal court right to lower age restrictions on Plan B?
Picture if you will, the fact that if you repeat a falsehood often enough, people will actually believe it. Andy perpetuates the “politics prevented Plan B” myth repeated in loaded news stories. Since when did news reporters stop fact-checking? Silly question, I know.
The 2003 FDA advisory committee, stacked with leftover Clinton appointees, was the one putting politics over science. The FDA must be sure a drug is both effective and safe for its proposed usage, and Plan B has never been proven safe for over the counter use – especially for minors.
Plan B is the same drug as the regular birth control pill – which requires a prescription – only 25 times stronger! Since medical reasons (like avoiding blood clots) require taking the low-dose pill only under a doctor’s care, Bush officials were right to overturn the advisory committee’s blithe, unprecedented assurance that the turbo version would be fine without one, thank you. It was the only such case in10 years because it was the most absurd, unscientific decision in10 years.
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, testified at that advisory committee meeting (“ground zero” she said in our interview), and explains, “there are activists and advocates for the drug on the committee,” not just the impartial scientists Andy believes.
Today, conservative warnings about Plan B have come to pass, and OTC nations like the U.K. have seen the inevitable consequences: women taking it 40 times in a row, schools giving it to 11-year-olds like candy, and health officials warning of serious health complications such as infertility. Federal District Judge Korman ignored all that, relying on incorrect information instead. (Maybe he’s been reading the news, too…) Wright pointed out, “His decision said Plan B would be 89 percent effective and decrease abortions – the same thing advocates originally said to get it OTC! Yet even prominent advocates of Plan B and medical journals now say it does not reduce pregnancies and abortions.”
Parents should be furious with a judge undermining their oversight and their girls’ safety based on a myth. “Teenagers,” Wright says, “still need a parental signature for tanning beds and field trips, but not to get a high dose hormone drug, with serious side effects.”
That is politics, not best-practice medicine.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
319 comments Add your comment
JustaJew
May 14th, 2009
11:02 am
Morning US,
I’m Ashkenazi. Long line of Russian Jews. About 1/2 my family managed to make it to Israel after Khruschev’s thaw in the mid-50’s. Some family members weren’t able to escape and are still in Russia although they are becoming more worried with the new nationalist wave of feeling sweeping through Russia now.
Hey Gandalf, being a Reform movement Jew means you CAN enjoy that succulent pulled pork sandwich (just not during Passover).
USinUK
May 14th, 2009
10:18 am
GtG –
he hasn’t spoken at ND, yet – and he handled the lack of honorary degree with grace and style.
as for American Catholics — the majority of American Catholics are pro-choice (and talk about Cafeteria Catholics — the church is adamantly opposed to the death penalty, but I don’t remember protests when W spoke there … parishioners, please open your hymnals to hymn #34, IOKIYAR)
but, wait!!! did someone say … BARRY???
You came along just like a song
and brightened my day,
Who’d've believe that you were part of a dream
Now it all seems light years away.
And now you know I Can’t Smile WIthout You,
I Can’t Smile Without You,
I can’t laugh and I can’t sing,
I’m finding it hard to do anything.
You see, I feel sad when you’re sad,
I feel glad when you’re glad,
If you only knew what I”m going through,
I just can’t smile.
Now some people sa y happiness takes so very long to find.
Well I’m finding it hard leaving your love behind me.
And you see,
I Can’t Smile Without You,
I Can’t Smile Without You,
I can’t laugh
and I can’t sing,
I’m findin’ it hard to do anything.
Y ou see, I feel sad when you’re sad,
I feel glad when you’re glad,
If You only knew what I’m going through,
I just Can’t Smile Without You
Gandalf, the White!
May 14th, 2009
10:11 am
Barry spoke at Notre Dame, American Cathlics didn’t like it. All Cathlics are run by an ex-Hitler Youth that served in Nazi Germany’s Army. American Cathlics don’t like Barry Obortion talkin’ at thier university. Barry is hasn’t accomplished much, so Arizona won’t give him an honorary Doctorate. He won’t get one until we all are covered cradle to grave, this will happen right before we fall. Remember Rome folks!
Gandalf, the White!
May 14th, 2009
10:03 am
The worst thing about being Jewish must be that you can’t eat a pulled pork sandwich.
Damn that Leviticus!
USinUK
May 14th, 2009
8:47 am
JoJ –
if you don’t mind my asking …. Ashkenazi? or Sephardic?
USinUK
May 14th, 2009
2:20 am
B-dog –
“Maybe I don’t put as much weight into legal “precedent” that you do, USinUK. Otherwise, once a certain ruling is made, it can never be changed.”
Not “A ruling” – multiple rulings. what Roberts called “super-precedent” when he was confirmed.
“A good example is the “eminent domain” case before the Supreme Court a few years ago. The fact that another judge made an incorrect ruling years ago doesn’t make the arbitrary seizing of private property for whatever reason the government invents the right thing to do.”
right thing to do? absolutely not. LEGAL, however – yes.
“Per waterboarding: One of two scenarios had to occur:
(1) Bush officials, with the knowledge of Democratic leaders, knowingly, willingly and openly violated the law with no regard to the consequences.
(2) Bush officials, with the knowledge of Democratic leaders, believed that “enhanced interrogation techniques fell within the bounds of the law and thus could be used on a limited basis.
Personally, I’m guessing option #2. I have to believe that they consulted with many lawyers before proceeding.”
Well, we KNOW that the Administration asked the DoJ to write memos justifying its use. As far as Dems (and GOP congress critters’) knowledge – do you know what goes on in those briefings? legislators can’t take notes, they can’t consult with their staff, they can’t consult legal experts. they weren’t asked for their approval, they were told.
“I’m advocating that a private investigation be done first, with the final results being made public once the investigation is finished, before any type of public hearings are held due to the high costs of said hearings. Is that not reasonable to you?”
sorry, B – that’s just a secret investigation dressed up and gone to town. that’s how criminal activities go unpunished. If we can hold 9/11 hearings in public, we can look into our use of torture.
… and as far as being a hypocrite because I’m a democrat who likes pulled pork barbecue … I’m sorry, but I’m not following you …
Bruno
May 13th, 2009
6:30 pm
“I’m all for learning more so if you can point me to another set of people with the same example, I’ll be happy to listen.”
Well, since you brought up the Bible, the Old Testament mentions that the Jews themselves obliterated several other tribes in the Middle East in ancient times. And many would argue that the “Palestinians” are the longest-suffering group in the post-WWII world. So yes, many, many groups have been persecuted throughout history, some at the hands of the Jews themselves. As for overall longevity of suffering, that might be a double-edged sword, insofar as you have to survive in the first place to rack up such a record.
“As for the “chosen people” comment above, I was really being facetious (I really was) because I honestly don’t put much stock in the Bible (never have and never will). As I’ve said before, being Jewish is my ethnicity, not really my religion (although they go hand in hand to a certain extent). My apologies for calling you childish. I was just angry with your comment that we see everyone as second class which, in my experience, is not true.”
I’ll accept your explanation that you were being facetious and your apology. In return, I apologize if I have come across in an offensive way. I hope you don’t mind my candor in my feelings toward Jewish people–without the “exclusivity” concern, I would have no beefs at all. In either case, you won’t find a stronger advocate for Israel than me.
JustaJew
May 13th, 2009
6:02 pm
Every Jew I’ve ever known at some point whips out the old “2500 years of suffering”, yet none of them appeared to be suffering personally to me.
You know, I’m not suffering, neither is my family and friends. What my comment above said is that we HAVE suffered, as have a lot of other people (the American Indians come to mind most specifically). What my comment above also said was that for 2500 years, various people have attempted to ANNIHILATE us, not cause us suffering, but to ANNIHILATE us, to wipe us off the face of the Earth just because we are Jewish. I’m all for learning more so if you can point me to another set of people with the same example, I’ll be happy to listen.
As for the “chosen people” comment above, I was really being facetious (I really was) because I honestly don’t put much stock in the Bible (never have and never will). As I’ve said before, being Jewish is my ethnicity, not really my religion (although they go hand in hand to a certain extent). My apologies for calling you childish. I was just angry with your comment that we see everyone as second class which, in my experience, is not true. I don’t think I’m better than anyone else (except maybe Carrot Top).
Bruno
May 13th, 2009
5:17 pm
“I always thought that the animals had to be killed humanely otherwise they’d be subject to animal cruelty charges. I guess one could say that the way in which they must live before slaughter is suffering but the actually slaughter….”
I saw a TV documentary not long ago in which an avid meat-supporter who derided animal rights groups was taken to several slaughter houses and cattle/chicken farms. By the end of the program, he was talking a lot differently, and ultimately was disturbed by what went on there.
I eat meat, but don’t harbor any illusions about how the meat got on my plate. Similarly, I love and support the USA, but understand that my comfort has come with a big price tag. Like liberals, I wish for a world that didn’t include suffering, but in realizing that it will never be that way, resist the urge to point fingers at others.
Bruno
May 13th, 2009
5:07 pm
“Bruno, your assertions about Jewish philosophy are childish in the extreme. The Jews see themselves as G-d’s chosen because we are. Ask any real Christian and he/she will tell you the same thing. It’s right there in the Bible.”
Ok, I got it now–Because an ancient book exists, written exclusively by Jews, which proclaims that–big surprise–only the Jews are God’s chosen people and that everyone else is second class, then all is settled. Sure thing. And you’re accusing ME of being childish? BTW, according to Christian theology, the condition by which only the Jews are the chosen ones is expanded in the New Testament, such that we all (potentially) are The Chosen People.
“Second, in NO way has any Jew I’ve know EVER downplayed anothers suffering just because we have suffered as well….I don’t know what ethnicity you are but you have anyone wanting to kill you because you were that ethnicity? Kinda chances the way you view things.”
Every Jew I’ve ever known at some point whips out the old “2500 years of suffering”, yet none of them appeared to be suffering personally to me. I’m not minimizing the plight of the Jews, just pointing out that every group has been conquered at some point, has suffered at some point. As a group, I find Jewish people to be hard-working and good citizens/people all-around and have had many Jewish friends throughout the years. But this attitude exclusiveness I find to be offensive, in the same way that I find the Muslims division of the world into “believers” and “infidels” to be offensive. Kind of like what you and the other liberals criticized Bush for. Just being honest with you.