FDA

plan-b1So here’s the gist of the issue, courtesy The News Journal:

The “morning after” contraceptive soon will be available to 17-year-olds, without a doctor’s prescription, after the Food and Drug Administration bowed to a federal judge’s order Wednesday.

Reversing a contentious policy of the Bush administration, the FDA said in a brief statement it will not appeal a judge’s order that overturns restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of “Plan B” to women 18 and older.

Critics called the decision a blow to parental supervision of teens. Supporters said the FDA’s action was long overdue, because the agency’s own medical reviewers initially had recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions.

The FDA did not think this one through. Allowing access of medication to 17 year olds just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Can a 17 year old get her ears pierced? A tattoo? A vaccination? Can she vote?  NO!!!

But apparently, the FDA thinks she’s old enough to make medical decisions for herself. Wait, scratch that. The FDA thinks she can make only one medical decision for herself…the decision to buy Plan B.

“Parents should be furious at the FDA’s complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Our own Kasey Ketterer , President of Pro-Life Vanguard, said, “Nationally we’ve set the age at which children become adults at 18, so I don’t understand the point of lowering that age one year just for this certain type of medication,” she said. “There’s a reason we don’t allow children to make medical decisions for themselves… . How low are we willing to go? Children of what age are too young?”

What do you think?

Please comment.

-GP

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to FDA

  1. Kasey says:

    Oh, hey. That’s me. 🙂

  2. Brad says:

    What an puzzling, arbitrary decision.

  3. Brad says:

    (and what an embarrassing typo)

  4. Mary says:

    I think Kasey’s comment were right on, why 17, not 14?

    Re:Plan B-I think it induces more disinhibition and lower perceived risk than is good for anyone. That 89% effectiveness number is probably on the high side. It’s based on pharma. company studies in the third world that relied on patient recall. 60% is probably more like it.

    The pills themselves probably cost well under 50 cents to produce. Quite a leap to what is charged.

    The one bright note is that that low effectiveness suggests they don’t prevent implantation and are not abortifacient. If they were, they’d work better at preventing apparent pregnancies. In vivo studies are pretty consistant on this.
    The next generation of post-coitals though may be more effective and truly abortifacient. Last I read, they were doing the trial runs on those abroad. They have a pesky problem to work out with hemorrage, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s