Posted on 10/12/2006 4:45:33 PM PDT by wagglebee
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-abortion law firm has filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration over its recent decision to allow over the counter sales of the morning after pill. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a legal complaint in an attempt to force the agency to extend the sales to teenagers under the age of 18.
When the FDA entered into an agreement with Barr Laboratories, the maker of the Plan B drug, it prohibited anyone under 18 from purchasing the morning after pill without a prescription.
That hasn't gone over well with abortion advocates and CRR, representing several pro-abortion women, filed a complaint against the federal agency in a federal court in Brooklyn this week.
The complaint replaces a similar one the group had filed against the FDA previously over its previous postponements on whether or not it would allow over the counter sales.
The previous complaint featured a debate between the pro-abortion law firm and the White House over whether it had to submit documents of discussions between the Bush administration and the FDA about the legal status of the Plan B drug.
According to an Associated Press report, attorneys for the FDA appeared in the Brooklyn federal court Wednesday and asked a magistrate to stop CRR from getting access to any more government documents until a ruling is handed down about whether the new legal complaint can proceed.
Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky did not rule on the request but hinted that he would likely side with CRR to allow its lawyers to continue getting government documents. He appeared to believe it was the only way to confirm the Bush administration's potential influence on the OTC approval process.
"It's not like they're fishing," Pohorelsky said of the pro-abortion attorneys.
But, Assistant U.S. Attorney F. Franklin Amanat said the CRR attorneys had not produced enough evidence to meet the typically high standards that must be met for the release of confidential presidential records.
"They have nothing but speculation, hearsay, innuendo and opinions," he said, according to the AP report.
The FDA has said that it made its decision on the over the counter sales on scientific grounds and that its decision should be upheld even if the Bush administration lobbied it.
A Utah doctor who was a member of a Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel says the morning after pill will not reduce the number of abortions and pregnancies that its supports claim it will do. He also indicated that the Plan B drug can work as an abortion agent in certain circumstances.
Dr. Joseph Stanford, associate professor of family and preventative medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, said the morning after pill won't be as effective as its maker claims.
He told the Deseret News that studies he and fellow researchers have done show a lower effectiveness rate than the 89 percent Barr Laboratories claims.
"We did more a precise meta-analysis that shows it's effective only 72 percent of the time, and even that number is optimistic," he indicated.
He also told the newspaper that studies from Europe, China and the United States show that the morning after pill does not reduce abortions. In fact, new abortion figures in England and Scotland show that abortions have reached their highest point ever despite over the counter sales of Plan B.
"In all cases, they found there was no effect on abortion rates and unintended pregnancy rates," he says.
St. Jerome's view here is that it's even worse for the soul to be laden, not only with the guilt of adultery, but with murder and suicide as well.
Of course not. When people marry, for instance, they do not maintain their virginity. But I think you knew that.
Your point?
"nor can it be since it a commandment of God and not subject to revision."
Well, obivously God is allowed to revise it, according to the Bible.
"St. Jerome's view here is that it's even worse for the soul to be laden, ..."
In for a Penny, in for a Pound ... are there different levels of Hell ?
Not sure your point, does that mean to FORCE your neighbor to do as you do ?
... I would certainly not want him to attempt to force me ( by law or physical force ) to do what he does ...
Dante had some pretty detailed ideas, though...
"Dante had some pretty detailed ideas, though..."
LOL - and George Lucas had some pretty detailed ideas of Darth Vedar ...
are we dependig on fiction writers now, or are you considering the writings of Dante as some sort of god-inspired Prophet ?
The Church says it's murder and that's good enough. The Apostles thought it was murder as they had recorded in the Didache, the training manual of the Apostles written in the first century...
"Thou shalt not kill a child by abortion,
neither shall thou slay it when born;
thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbor."
Didache 2:2
I listen to the Church before I draw my own conclusions on the Bible, which by-the-way, is a Catholic book.
Criminal law is not compelled to require all good or forbid and punish all evil. In fact it could not do so.
I don't have a detailed, systematic philosophy of criminal law at my fingertips, but I'm generally satisfied with what the second paragaph of the Declaration of Idependence says about the ends of good government. And since the right to life is paramount, offenses against life would be the most important to proscribe.
Interesting, ... never heard of the Didache before ... is this your "rock" ?
If I spend the time to investigate it, will you stand by everything it says as the true word of God ?
Perhaps you could link to the English translation you have quoted ...
"You asked me to define moral absolutes; that I did, with reference to Jesus' answer to the question. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was forcing somebody by law to comply with this."
Isn't denying others access to ANY chemical substance by law because of your moral convictions forcing them to comply with your moral absolutes ?
BTW - found this -
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
"The Didache is written from the view point of a community leadership that distrusts, and yet respects, Christian prophets, one that wishes the prophets to leave town as quickly as possible, yet would have them welcomed in town when they arrive. "
So what's your point? Are you trying to discredit the Church's teaching on abortion? The right to life? That view has been unanimous from Christ to the present Holy Father. Without that basic right to life, all other "rights" are rather mute don't you think? I am grateful that you and I can have this conversation. Without a moral code that our mothers believed in, we would not be here. It is so wonderful to see a mother's love in action. If morality were relative, then a chaotic system of social governance would not guarantee a thing.
If, for instance, the chemical substance in question places life or health at risk, there is a state interest in regulating the substance, based on, as I said before, the state's paramount role of protecting life.
The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and every other law --- every one of them--- involves enforcing somebody's moral convictions. Law is, by definition, a form of coercion: a way of compelling or proscribing various acts by force of authority.
"So what's your point?"
Well, you could simply look back to my original posts, before you decided to swerve off from it
Your post in #12-
"It is a sin to kill. That is a moral absolute."
Is simply not supported in the Bible ... Numbers 31:17
Is the Old testament false, or did God change his mind ?
When do the absolutes start ?
While God is the Supreme Judge--and all the world's religions DO agree on that particular point--He IS merciful to those who repent of their dirty deeds (sins).
Who are you to put God on the witness stand? Can God change His mind for some divine purpose we cannot comprehend? Sure. Perhaps in the context of routing out evil it was neccesary. It was God's command, not our decision.
God changed His mind not to destroy Ninehvah.
God was willing to let Lot bargain for the lives of a few in Sodom.
The Church can excersize a just war, cannot God? Do I understand it? No. But an understood God is no God at all.
I hope you are not seriously saying that governemntal restrictions of any kind equate in any way to moral absolutes.
By definition a government that allows freedom would go out of its way to allow the most UN-restrictive practices amongst it's citizens.
This is a really, really bad idea. These drugs, taken even under a doctor's supervision, have caused many to hemorrhage. If this becomes OTC, it will be a nation-wide medical disaster waiting to happen.
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.