The politics of birth control can produce unusual allies. Take Monday’s ruling in federal district court in New York, overturning the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on selling the morning after Plan B contraceptive over the counter to women younger than 18.
The judge in that case, Edward Korman, scathingly criticized several Health and Human Services and FDA officials for bowing to “pressure” from President George W. Bush’s White House and its “constituents,” and for using “political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications” to hold up nonprescription sales of the birth control drug for years.
In a 52-page ruling, Korman sounded like a speechwriter for President Barack Obama, accusing the FDA and the Bush administration of tossing science under the bus to “appease” conservative supporters of Bush in Congress and the Republican Party.
But Judge Korman is no leftover liberal from Bill Clinton’s era—he’s an appointee of Ronald Reagan, and long before that, was in the Justice Department under President Richard Nixon…
Meantime, if the Obama White House does not appeal the ruling, it will mark the fourth significant departure from the Bush administration’s positions on controversial health-care issues since Obama’s inauguration. The other three decisions allow federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research and for international aid groups that offer abortion counseling, and a move to lift the rule that would let medical personnel shun abortion-related services on the basis of their conscience.
Only controversial to nutballs who think we should live under a theocracy.
It’s always the “Other Party” that is political.
Why stop there? If there’s anything worse than a pregnant 17 year old it’s a pregnant 16 year old.
As if Reagan and Nixon appointees can’t be liberals. David Souter and John Paul Stephens are Republican appointees, as are Anthony Kennedy and before that Sandra Day O’Connor.
Plus Nixon expanded affirmative action, created the OSHA and the EPA, supported ERA, and instituted wage and price controls, so he was hardly a conservative himself.
The question still comes down to separation of church and state. Because Nixon and Reagan were closer to traditional American conservatism, they didn’t wander off into the “God is on my side” crap that afflicted Bush.
And his sycophants.
Maybe it was the other way around. In the article, the judge said that approval only came because Hillary Clinton help up appointees to the FDA. Maybe it was this political interference that led to the bad science of approving the pill(this ruling is about age).
Well, the conservatives do like the government to watch over their penis. I mean, sex is dirty, immoral and we are talking about the children for crying out loud.
Good, maybe we can getting a similar ruling that Marijuana is being banned no good scientific reason.
So the judge reversed the direction because the FDA and others were bowing to policial pressure. Isn’t that reversal also a political position?
Forget about political leanings, if a 17 year old is not able to legally consent to sex then why is this option available?
#7, the reason why this is an issue is because over-the-counter drugs don’t require the kiddies to involve, or even tell their parents about what is going on. This is consistent with the push to allow minors to seek abortions without parental consent or notification.
Mike, give it up. Even at the time of the original FDA ruling it was widely criticized by everyone involved in health science as a purely political move by Bush. Even FDA staff wanted to know why their scientific and apolitical process had been corrupted by Bush.
Remember Mike, one of Bush’s goals was to fill as many agency positions as possible with conservative-religious directors and managers who agreed with his ideology, many of whom had bare-minimum or even zero qualifications. Remember Brownie? That’s but one example of thousands.
Holding up some of those appointments was the right thing to do, regardless your politics. You can argue small government or whatever, but appointing idiots serves you just as badly as it serves me.
#7 dogday…in most states the age of consent is 16.
So, is someone wanting to say that the FDA, a political organization, has ever been anything other than political? Or is something “political” only to the extent that one doesn’t agree with it?
# 10 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “…in most states the age of consent is 16.”
Umm, no. In most states that is statutory rape…
#12, if they are both minors, and over the age of consent, then no.
Paddy, you are wrong.
http://4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_sex/statelaws_chart/statelaws_chart.html
Is Bush still President?
Why didn’t the Chosen One simply order the FDA to change the rule on his first day in office?
#14 Thanks for the link and info.
#15…smart people will reach the proper conclusions all by themselves once inappropriate influence is removed.
Mark: all the agencies are political to some extent, that’s unavoidable given the way they are staffed. But Bush took the politics and ideological requirements to a whole new level. Most presidents replace about 1,000 of the possible 5,000 possible appointees, recognizing that management turnover in an agency causes massive disruption and massive waste. Not Bush. He replaced far more than 1,000, I don’t know the final number but in ’04/05 he was up to 1,500 or so.
Right to abort. Right to Die, Right to ruin industries by high taxation and idiotic government regulation. That’s the Democrat Party for you. Killing is their business.
Paddy…I recently helped create a reproductive health curriculum for my kids’ school. Most folks, and very few kids, understand the implications of the age of consent. In Michigan if you have sex with a 15.99 year old and the parents report you, you’re on the sex offender list for 25 years. We teach that lesson thoroughly, and it’s effective as far as we can tell.
Key question: which “way” is political?
Of course, ALL ISSUES, are political, or have a political component, or can be MADE political.
In this instance, the FDA’s delay was MAKING an issue political and the judge acted correctly to stop the Bush BS.
The politics of the issue were RESOLVED when congress passed the law or maintained a law that such drugs could be sold to kiddies. The Bush F&cktarded Religilous Base was pandered to by the FDA whose ONLY ROLE after the politics was resolved was to follow the approval process. NOT FOLLOWING the approval process is illegal/malfeasance/POLITICAL.
Show me a retard who claims “it’s political” and I’ll show you a repuglican wingnut 9/10 times.
#18–Warden==that’ll make you 1 of the 10.
I think everyone agrees that teenage solo parenthood is disastrous for all concerned. And the options available to teenagers in the predicament shouldn’t be hidden from them.
sounds like big business got to this judge, you know the other part of (oh wait really the only part) of the republican party. the know how much money they are missing out on lost sales due to fundies and company political pressure..
>The politics of the issue were RESOLVED when congress passed the law or maintained a law that such drugs could be sold to kiddies.
Bobbo, I don’t think that’s how the drug approval process works.
Here we have a political override of agency scientific decisions, as established by the GAO in reviewing the FDA procedures. However, I’m not convinced that the original approvals aren’t political instead of scientific.
A key part of the approval recommendations was that the reviews concluded that use would not go beyond the recommended literature.
In other words, Plan B will not become Plan A.
Do others here think this is the case?
#25–Mike==that is a very fair comment and even makes sense. Still, even in your scenario, the FDA is simply “not doing its job” which is only to assure safety/efficacy. Whether or not a safe or unsafe drug should be allowed on the market with appropriate cautions is THE POLITICAL question resolved at the legislative level. Once at the FDA, things should go rather fast as the open questions should be only scientific.
If Plan A is contraception taken before sex, I don’t see how Plan B can ever become Plan A. Ironic then I stumbled into Plan C above?
Sure why not? That is, as long as the State is willing to take complete responsibility for the teen’s actions from the parent.
It’s a “no taxation without representation” sort of thing. Parents can’t be held responsible unless they are responsible.
And by the way, that’s exactly why this bit of law doesn’t have a hope of sticking.
It’s quite the laugh how some folks prattle on about how it’s always the responsibility of the parent to supervise or instruct their children to act responsibly so the rest of us can enjoy our inalienable right to no censorship and teen-inappropriate messages on TV, radio, internet, etc. You know, like the Horse Sex Channel – even though none of us would ever watch such a thing. Unless, of course, it was done for art purposes. Like Harry Potter in Equus.
If and when the above law is enacted, it will be clear evidence that 24 hour parental control is, always was, and always will be impossible. And that will lead to the necessity for more nanny-state censorship laws to protect the children.
You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, yes, I know. And that little bit of extra censorship must by definition lead to goose-stepping storm-troopers in our streets.
RBG
25 bobbo. Great idea. Maybe we can also add other noxious chemicals to the water supply under the guise of the greater good and charge a small antidote fee for those wishing for the right to opt out.
I’m thinking chemical castration meds in the water to catch all the sex deviants. That ought to make a tidy profit.
If that proves successful we could research some kind of anti-liberal drug.
RBG
#28–RBG==its rare to see so much gibberish and non-sequiters strung together. I can’t tell what you are for or against. Well Done.
If you have a specific question, bobbo, ask away. I’m always glad to help out the less perceptive as a public service.
RBG