Posted on 04/06/2013 2:09:37 AM PDT by markomalley
A federal judge on Friday ordered that the most common morning-after pill be made available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger. But his acidly worded decision raises a broader question about whether a cabinet secretary can decide on a drug’s availability for reasons other than its safety and effectiveness.
In his ruling, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York accused the Obama administration of putting politics ahead of science. He concluded that the administration had not made its decisions based on scientific guidelines, and that its refusal to lift restrictions on access to the pill, Plan B One-Step, was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”
He said that when the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, countermanded a move by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 to make the pill, which helps prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse, universally available, “the secretary’s action was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm not a scientist, but were you a blastocyst at one time?
Only about 10-25% of all fertilized ova are capable of survival to birth.
So?
Do they teach logic in scientist school?
So why are alcohol and cigarettes 21 and up? shouldn’t it be either 18 or any age as well?
Thanks for filling me in on this. I’m curious to know why the age of 18 is used to distinguish between prescription and OTC use. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that has to be a strictly legal definition and not a medical one, right?
With that kind of reasoning, one could argue that any artificial means of preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg is verboten.
It seems better to prevent an egg from growing into a viable baby than to rip a growing baby from its womb by a mother that does not want it there.
If a state has an "age of consent" of 16 written into its criminal code, wouldn't the purchase of an OTC "morning-after pill" by a 15 year-old be evidence that a crime may have been committed?
Well, I actually agree with that conclusion, but because of that reason.
If you prevent sperm from reaching the egg, you have one situation. While it is problematic because it closes the sexual act from its natural procreative function, it is completely different than interfering with life once it been created.
Yep - I’m with you on this up to a point.
So your reasoning is that the Executive Branch setting arbitrary limits shouldn’t be allowed. Would it be okay for Congress to set such arbitrary limits?
I think it (OTC nicotine cessation products age restrictions) has more to do with legal constructs and the fact that that cigarettes can’t be sold to people under the age of 18 than medical concerns although I can see why selling nicotine patches, gum, etc. to kids would not be a good idea. For that matter, I would think that selling any OTC drug; cold and cough medicines for example, even Tylenol which can be very dangerous and fatal if too much is taken, to minors would or should be restricted. What if a 14 year old girl walks into a CVS and buys 10 boxes of laxatives? I would think that would raise some red flags but legally – is she prevented from buying them?
But then again many age restrictions and limits are somewhat arbitrary and vary from state to state where they do not fall under federal regulation and they don’t always make sense IMO.
For example an 18 year old can buy six cartons of cigarettes but not a six pack of beer. He can buy a car or lease an apartment, get a credit card but can’t rent a car until he’s 25 (although I think that’s set by the car leasing companies and not by law) A 16 year old can walk into an abortion clinic and get an abortion without parental permission but she can’t buy a pack of cigarettes or the nicotine patch if she’s a smoker and wants to quit. A 15 year old can buy condoms but he can’t buy a lottery ticket. An 18 year can get married (younger in some states) or join the military without parental permission, can be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan and get blown to bits but can’t legally drink until 21. And if a dad buys his 20 year old son a beer before his son is sent on a overseas deployment, technically he's broken the law and could be arrested for it.
When I was 20 years old in the early 80’s, I had a full time job managing a convenience store, was responsible for hiring, firing employees, handled the ordering and banking, owned a car, had a department store credit card and had my own apartment for which I signed the lease solely on my own. At that time in Maryland, I could purchase beer legally being over 18 but under 21 but not wine or liquor. I also had my own medical insurance through my employer. But when I went to a dentist to have an impacted wisdom tooth pulled, even as I wasn’t going under general anesthesia, only local Novocain, the dentist wouldn’t do the extraction unless I brought a parent who had to sign the authorization even though I was paying for it myself. I don’t know or recall if that was a legal requirement at the time or just this dentist’s rule but I was infuriated. I remember arguing with him that if I wanted an abortion, I could get one but having a tooth pulled required me to bring my daddy?
Originally the minimum age for purchasing “Plan B” without a prescription was lowered in 2009 from 18 to 17 years of age, 17 being a somewhat arbitrary age IMO when the age limits for purchasing many other controlled substances is 18 or 21. But in this ruling, removing any age restrictions for purchasing an OTC birth control pill, one with potential side effects, does that mean a 6 year old with cash could now walk into a CVS and purchase it? As long as she isn’t buying cigarettes or a lottery ticket or Sudafed, I guess it’s OK?
If a state has an "age of consent" of 16 written into its criminal code, wouldn't the purchase of an OTC "morning-after pill" by a 15 year-old be evidence that a crime may have been committed?
Good question. And for that matter what if a 15 year old came to a pharmacy with a prescription for a drug to treat an STD? I believe that in order to get a prescription filled for a controlled substance, you must prove you are at least 18 years old but I don't know if that applies to antibiotics.
Some judge will say age of consent laws deny children their "equal right to human fulfillment."
It’s not my reasoning as I’m trying to follow his. If I understand it correctly the law was written by congress to prevent just such interference - in favor of or striking against - from the white house. The judge ended up striking it not on constitutional grounds but as administrative law.
Let me rush to say that I’m not a lawyer. I could easily be misunderstanding his reasoning.
I will be happy when they make birth control retroactive.
DNA is not some mystical substance that confers properties of individuality or anything else. It's just a carrier of information used to direct biological processes. Identical twins or triplets do not have unique DNA--does that mean their lives are meaningless? The chicken I ate last night, the cells I grow in the lab all have unique DNA--does that give them some kind of special status?
Life begins at fertilization. While a zygote (or a blastocyst) probably does not have feelings, it is a life. Whether that life is capable of feeling or not, it is a life.
I cannot say that life "begins" at fertilization, because there is never a point at which life is absent. The living sperm fuses with the living egg to form a living zygote. They are alive, but they are not "a life". A couple of hundred cells do not have the physical capability to be aware. From a purely objective standpoint, I cannot see any significant or functional difference between a ball of a few cells resulting from a fertilization event and the cells coating the bottom of the Petri dish in the lab.
If two fertilized ova fuse and grow as one embryo, it does not make the resulting person into two lives--it is still just one person, one life. About three weeks after fertilization, when there is a sufficient number of cells to start forming a nervous system--which is the seat of all awareness--then, it is appropriate to consider the organism to be a separate person. Because, objectively, the nervous system is the distinguishing factor between a person and a bunch of cells.
It was not the FDA's original ruling that this drug be sold OTC. The second paragraph of this article mentions it. I'm providing the link to another article that explains the situation in more detail, but this article is only available to subscribers. The FDA committees that reviewed the drug could not come to an agreement on whether it should be granted OTC status. The studies mentioned in the subscriber-only article examined the behavior of groups over a period of 6 months, during which they may have used Plan B one or more times. There are no studies mentioned regarding the health effects of using Plan B several times a month over an extended period of time.
The political pressure on the FDA began in the early 2000s.
I am going to guess that the committees that reviewed the data were not concerned with the effects of a one-time use of the drug, but had the same concerns that I do. That a small subset of women will assume that OTC=perfectly safe, and pop one of those pills every time they have intercourse. In the case of a married woman, that could end up being several times a month, in which case that drug can pose serious short- and long-term health issues.
No. There was one particular blastocyst that went on to develop the nervous system where I now reside, but that blastocyst was not me. *I* am rooted within the nervous system of this biological organism.
So?
Do they teach logic in scientist school?
A scientist learns to observe objectively and not insert personal bias or feelings into the observations.
Until a nervous system develops, there is no objective criterion by which I can say that a handful of cells resulting from fertilization is any different than a similar number of cells growing in a petri dish, scraped from inside the mouth, collected during a biopsy, etc. Most blastocysts do not have the ability to implant and cause pregnancy, and, frankly, I am not concerned over someone taking measures to decrease the probability of a blastocyst implanting.
Plan B works to inhibit ovulation, and to make the uterine lining less receptive to implantation. This is not what concerns me. My concern is the adverse health effects likely to result from taking a strong endocrine disruptor on a frequent basis.
I believe the age of 18 (and 21) is more or less arbitrarily selected to represent a measure of adulthood. Biologically speaking, the brain is not fully mature until about age 25.
I've been told that in previous centuries, in France, the age of majority was 24. That is a little more in line with biological maturity.
I’ve often said that if I ever were to get another dog, I’d be highly tempted to teach him how to read, then give him a list of Federal judges to bite.
Who was it?
*I* am rooted within the nervous system of this biological organism.
So the rest of you, outside your nervous system, isn't you?
This materialist notion of self is self-contraditory and inchoherent. For example, if you are a machine, how can you have certain knowledge of anything?
A scientist learns to observe objectively and not insert personal bias or feelings into the observations.
I went to engineering school, so I have some understanding of science. I also understand the limitations of science, which are the often unexamined assumptions underlying the methodology.
The study of Aristotle and Aquinas greatly clarified my own thinking.
Until a nervous system develops, there is no objective criterion by which I can say that a handful of cells resulting from fertilization is any different than a similar number of cells growing in a petri dish, scraped from inside the mouth, collected during a biopsy, etc.
One is a fertilized egg, i.e., a human being in its earliest stage of development, and the others are handfuls of cells that do not have the potential to develop into human beings.
Most blastocysts do not have the ability to implant and cause pregnancy,
How does that give us the right to kill all or any of them?
and, frankly, I am not concerned over someone taking measures to decrease the probability of a blastocyst implanting. Plan B works to inhibit ovulation, and to make the uterine lining less receptive to implantation. This is not what concerns me.
What is the objective evidence? Is a blastocyst a human being in its earliest stage of development?
Implantation is an odd and subjective demarcation of the beginning of a human life, since individuation occurs at fertilization (confirmed by the creation of new DNA).
My concern is the adverse health effects likely to result from taking a strong endocrine disruptor on a frequent basis.
That's good. But individual human lives are important at every stage of development, not just adulthood.
If the so-called “morning after pill” can be mandated to be available without a prescription or age of majority status or parental approval, then why the hell isn’t birth control also afforded this same availability?
“Abortion as “birth control” is bad policy. But the Sanda Sluts of the world want somebody ELSE to pay for their birth control. When it’s available over the counter, you have to reach in your own pocket and pay 100% of the cost.
Dead Red Ted Kennedy opposed medical savings accounts that could be used to personally bank pre-tax dollars into a savings plan for use and rolling over the unused dollars into the subsequent years. He fought that tooth and nail until he died.
It’s never been my attempt to address anything but the ruling that was confusing. Whether or not the FDA originally said no to OTC isn’t at stake. No one contests that they did eventually did make it OTC.
“solely on the ability of the consumer to understand how to use the particular drug safely and effectively.” is the standard that allows Executive to interfere and treat this differently than any other OTC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.