Editorial, Opinion Piece Respond To Federal Judge's Ruling On Nonprescription Access To Plan B

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Pediatrics / Children's Health;  Regulatory Affairs / Drug Approvals
Article Date: 31 Mar 2009 - 5:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions
The following summarizes an opinion piece and editorial responding to a federal judge's order last week for FDA to reconsider age restrictions on nonprescription sales of the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

~ Marie Cocco, Indianapolis Star: U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman's ruling on Plan B "is a chilling compendium of accounts by doctors and other FDA professionals who were routinely overruled by" former President George W. Bush's "political henchmen," Cocco, a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, writes in an Star opinion piece. She writes that the "court's decision is tragically relevant," noting that the U.S. teen birth rate increased last year for the second year in a row. Cocco asks, "Was the FDA's ideological war on birth control a cause?" She continues, "No one can know. What we know is that it certainly did not help a distraught teenager," adding that "[n]or did the pernicious spread of federally financed abstinence-only sex education programs during the Bush era." She writes that although there is "little doubt that the drug's safety and effectiveness ... will hold sway" in the Obama administration's review of Plan B, "White House plans on abstinence-only education programs remain foggy." She notes that Obama's budget proposal "calls for financing 'evidence-based' sex education that provides 'medically accurate and age-appropriate information' to youth, ... [b]ut the president has also vowed to fund 'faith-based efforts' to reduce teen pregnancy." Cocco concludes, "It takes a leap of faith, indeed, to see how these two objectives can be reconciled without sacrificing science -- and the lives of girls and women who should be able to depend on it" (Cocco, Indianapolis Star, 3/27).

~ Philadelphia Inquirer: Korman's ruling on Plan B "deserves applause" and "makes it possible for the agency to base its findings on health considerations, not political interference," according to a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial. The editorial says that "[t]he safety of the drug has been proven" but that "the concern about making the contraceptive available to younger girls is something the agency must take into consideration," as "[m]any parents wouldn't want their daughters to make such a decision without discussing it with them, or consulting a doctor." According to the editorial, "There's no excuse for the FDA to claim, as it once did, that it can't figure out a way to prevent sales to girls under 16." It notes that FDA has "decided pharmacies are capable of screening teenagers to make sure that nobody under age 18 buys tobacco products." Plan B is a "safe and effective option for women to prevent pregnancy in emergencies," the editorial says, adding that a 2005 peer-reviewed study "found that use of Plan B did not cause women to engage in more risky sexual behavior." Availability of Plan B to women younger than age 18 "doesn't nullify a teen's or parents' responsibility to discuss the consequences and risks of sexual activity," the editorial states, concluding that "the court's ruling allows the agency in charge of drug safety to make a decision based only on public health considerations" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.