Will the FDA Finally Stop Putting Politics ahead of American Women?
Posted by on August 1, 2006 at 12:18 PM
That's the question on everyone's mind after the FDA suddenly announced they would resume consideration of Plan B this week.
From The San Francisco Chronicle:
Plan B has come to symbolize what many critics of the Bush administration say is a wide pattern of politics trumping science.
An FDA advisory committee -- whose advice the agency virtually always accepts -- recommended approval of over-the-counter sales of the drug for women of any age more than two years ago.
Dozens of professional societies, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, also came out in favor of nonprescription sales, saying there is no evidence backing conservatives' claims that easier access to the drug would lead to an increase in promiscuity.
Yet in an apparent break from its tradition of hewing strictly to science, which a recent Government Accountability Office report termed "unusual," the agency repeatedly refused to approve the switch.
So what could be prompting their change of heart? It looks like someone needs to be confirmed...
The letter from acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to Duramed Research Inc. of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., came just one day before von Eschenbach's Senate confirmation hearing, scheduled for this morning.
The timing led many of the drug's supporters, including several members of Congress, to discount the FDA's announcement as a political ploy timed to defuse what was widely anticipated to be a difficult interrogation of von Eschenbach.
The timing "is not a coincidence," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who, with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has promised to block a vote on von Eschenbach's confirmation until the FDA makes a decision on Plan B.
For three years American women have waited for the FDA to move on this issue. The same Administration that caved to the extreme religious right-wing of the Republican Party and denied millions the hope that federally funded stem-cell research could provide, has refused to follow the advice of it's own agency and denied women access to this drug, in another act of putting their politics before sound policy.
In the meantime, American women will continue to wait.
Comments - 8 »
Comments - 8 «
We all need to abstain, especially hookers who service the likes of Limbaugh.
Posted by SandyH on August 1, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Is Plan B sound policy? If it was truly emergency contraception, in other words it prevented conception; the uniting of a sperm and an egg, then absolutely no one in their right mind would have a problem with it. However, the FDA (please check their web site) describes Plan B as working in this this way (and this is a direct pick up from their site);
3. How does Plan B work?
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.
In other words, they don't really know how it works! If it actually prevents conception, then no one has a problem. However, if it prevents implantation in the womb of an already fertilized egg, then it's really no different than RU482 and is essentially an abortive agent. Who are we supposed to turn to for good information if the FDA doesn't even have a clue? And we want them to recommend the release of this drug for over the counter use!!??
Posted by jonhn on August 1, 2006 at 01:37 PM
Sandy, that post made my day. I suppose I really cannot complain about this thread.
Posted by PeppermintLizzy on August 1, 2006 at 02:02 PM
Why are King George's cult members siding with the rapists?
Posted by pee-wee on August 1, 2006 at 02:53 PM
Most miscarriages occur in the 1st two weeks of pregnancy and few women realize that they have had an early spontaneous abortion. Some books even state that 4 out of 5 pregnancies are terminated in spontaneous abortion. Of the women who have given birth, 20% know that they have already had a miscarriage. In our society, there seems to be little concern for these facts. It's only when women want to control their bodies and the circumstances for being pregnant that there is all this debate of whether we have the legal or moral right to do so. If you object to having an unwanted miscarriage, it's just "sorry for your loss." Also, these same people do not seem to be concerned when the poor cannot afford prenatal visits or vaccinations. It just doesn't make that much sense to the average woman to demand that she stay pregnant but when she goes to the hospital having a miscarriage it's usually wait and see, or a d & c, with no life-saving attempt to save the fetus. And the right-to-lifers would rather women and children die during childbirth or be a burden to their parents, than for a woman to have an abortion when she has an illness that impacts the duration or outcome of a pregnancy. Everyone has their principles or what is most important to themself, and I don't see why someone else should have a say in the principles a woman follows in bearing children. Would someone give or deny her life-saving treatments or cures if it caused her pregnancy to be endangered? These are questions that shouldn't be up to politicians, only for a mother to decide. Would you want politicians to decide other healthcare decisions that you might be faced with?
Posted by MominTN on August 1, 2006 at 03:08 PM
Is Plan B sound policy?
How does Plan B work?
Posted by jonhn on August 1, 2006 at 01:37 PM
Since the good lord decided not to let you ever in on this miracle, why are you inserting yourself into the argument? Go flush you Viagra down the toilet and watch soccer...or professional wrestling.
I'm sick of men (or their weak kneed sisters) questioning my medical decisions. Mind your own business, you old biddy.
Posted by SandyH on August 1, 2006 at 03:56 PM
Posted by Rally on August 1, 2006 at 04:04 PM
SandyH, I acknowledge your right to express your religious beliefs relative to this issue. Personally however, I believe religion should play no role in this debate. You're angry, and it sounds like you're angry at men in particular. You have every right to be! It is the historical irresponsibility of men, when it comes to sex and procreation, that led to the exceptance of the idea of abortion in the first place. My feeling is, men and women, together, equally, comprise what we refer to as humanity. We—together—are equally responsible, as citizens and more importantly as human beings, for protecting the rights of all people in this country. Because someone has a vagina or a penis, does not preclude them from this responsibility. You've probably heard the phrase, "women and children," at some time in your life. This is a patronizing and condesending phraze coined by men who believed that women were incapable of functioning on an intellectual par with them. They believed that women were ruled by their emotions and could never truly be equal to men, and therefore—like children—they could not be truly held responsible, or essentially accountable, for their actions! It's time for women to truly stand up and confront this idea for the total bull shit that it really is!! As a man, I have never believed this, my wife of 30 years has always been my equal (if not my superior) because she is a human being first, an American citizen second and a woman third. Men and Women—together—are responsible for protecting human life! By the way, even after 30 years of marrage, I've never needed Viagra... knock on wood! (no pun intended)
Posted by jonhn on August 2, 2006 at 07:30 AM
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
