Anti-Choice lapdog up for a vote to be the FDA commissioner

Dubya’s anti-choice/anti-contraceptive nominee for FDA commissioner, Lester Crawford, is up for a committee vote on Capitol Hill today. Let’s take a look at his crappy track record on the FDA when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, the Plan B emergency contraceptive ‘over-the-counter’ issue, and his controversial past…

Questions Loom Over Nominee for Top Job at FDA
Comprehensive Scientific Data Submitted to the FDA Two Years Ago Shows Emergency Contraception Should Be Available Over the Counter

WASHINGTON, DC … On Wednesday, June 15, controversial nominee Lester Crawford will face a committee vote on his nomination to be the FDA commissioner. The vote in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) comes after Crawford refused to guarantee a decision on whether the FDA will grant over-the-counter status to Plan B emergency contraception (EC). The FDA has failed to act for more than two years on the application for over-the-counter status of Plan B, while Crawford has overseen the agency.

Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) have vowed to stall a vote by the full Senate until the FDA rules on EC. Vital questions remain over who in the FDA requested a “minority report,” written by Dr. David Hager, which laid out reasons for the FDA to disregard the opinions of its own blue-ribbon advisory panels and reject over-the-counter status for Plan B. Emergency contraception is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse.

Following is a statement by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Interim President Karen Pearl on Lester Crawford’s nomination:

Crawford has a serious credibility problem. The questions and doubt surrounding his track record at the FDA disqualify him for such an important job. As the leading health care provider of and advocate for emergency contraception, Planned Parenthood strongly urges President Bush to select nominees who are committed to sound science and to advancing public health. Contrary to what we’ve seen happen with emergency contraception, political bias has no place at the FDA.

Polity can be a wonderful means for appeasement. For example, the appeasement of a few feverently anti-choice/anti-contraceptive, anti-women’s civil rights/liberties, leading arch-conservative Christian ideologues, who just happen to be pulling the strings of the current presidential administration and the neocon-wingnut Republican dominated Congress. Hear that cracking of the whip?

Over-the-counter status for emergency contraception is stalled even after the FDA’s own advisory panels recommended approval by an overwhelming margin. As acting head of the FDA, Crawford should rule on emergency contraception, a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion, before the Senate votes on his nomination. The American people deserve an FDA that will protect their health and safety by putting science ahead of politics.”

But who is this anti-choice lackey up for the committee vote? Here’s his profile

Who Is Lester Crawford?

On February 14, President Bush announced his nomination of Lester M. Crawford to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At a time when the FDA is reeling from criticism over a variety of recent decisions, the nomination has been placed under a microscope … and with good reason.

Musical Chairs at the FDA

Crawford’s history with the FDA dates back to the early days of President Bush’s first term. In 2001, Tommy Thompson, who was then secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), recommended Crawford to be commissioner of the FDA. But the president opted instead for Mark McClellan.

The FDA, with Crawford at the helm, had two options … one was clearly rooted in science, the other in ideology. It chose ideology, bowing to anti-choice pressures and denying over-the-counter status to EC. Crawford won the deputy commissioner consolation prize. But in March 2004, when McClellan stepped down from his position at the FDA to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Crawford became acting commissioner.

Though the president didn’t seem to be in any hurry to tap a new commissioner, many assumed that Crawford would eventually be named. They were right. And when the nomination became official on February 14, it won great praise from Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt. Leavitt, who replaced Thompson as HHS secretary after the president’s reelection, is not particularly friendly to women’s reproductive health and rights.

Cause for Concern

Criticisms lodged against Crawford are legion … among them, an ineffective response to the recent shortage of flu vaccines, a relationship with drug companies that’s been referred to as “cozy,” and the fact that he is the first nominee for the position since 1981 who is not a physician (he has a doctorate in veterinary medicine and in pharmacology).

But of all the FDA decisions that have been handed down under Crawford’s leadership, one stands out as particularly troubling … the denial of over-the-counter status for Plan B emergency contraception (EC), despite support from the FDA’s own advisory panels and major professional medical associations.

Science Loses, Health Is Compromised

Jeepers! Science losing and health being compromised under this administration, all to cater the Radical Christian Rightwing’s whims?! I_am_shocked. But anyway…

On December 16, 2003, a joint hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees voted 23 to 4 to recommend that the FDA make EC available over the counter. Virtually all major medical and health care organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, supported the move.

But on May 6, 2004, in flagrant disregard of this scientific consensus, the FDA notified Barr Laboratories, which manufactures Plan B, that its application for over-the-counter status had been denied, citing concerns about adolescent use. It conveniently overlooked studies showing that EC is safe for younger women and that they use EC responsibly. Studies also show that access to EC does not increase or encourage sexual activity among teens.

In response to the decision, Barr Laboratories submitted a revised application to the FDA, asking that EC be made available without a prescription to women 16 and older. (Teens 15 and younger would still need a prescription to obtain it.) The FDA had been asked to respond to this application by January 20, 2005, but, in a highly unusual move, it missed the deadline. The agency indicated that review of the medication is expected to be completed in the near future but has not specified a date.

The FDA, with Crawford at the helm, had two options … one was clearly rooted in science, the other in ideology. It chose ideology, bowing to anti-choice pressures and denying over-the-counter status to EC. The FDA is an agency that should be championing science. Under Crawford’s leadership, science has been compromised. But Crawford’s decision should not be surprising since the man who appointed him chooses, at every opportunity, to replace sound science with right-wing extremism.

Paging Dr. Crawford

Before Crawford’s nomination can be confirmed, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold a hearing to evaluate his qualifications. An important question needs to be asked: Will Crawford continue down the path of politicizing public health or change course and uphold science over ideology?

(emphasis mine)

Um, well,…old habits die hard.

When it comes to the leadership of the oldest consumer protection agency in the country, much is at stake for the reproductive health and rights of the American public.

Since reproductive rights is perceived to be a “women’s thing” and science stands in direct opposition to the Radical Rightwing’s most cherished pro-religious superstition/quasi-theocratic rhetoric–they wish to put into political and government action, of course it’s ‘at stake’. Especially under this administration and Congress which thrives off of the far Rightwing. For the neo/theocratic-conservatives it’s a way to kill two birds with one stone; women’s rights and science. Put a few arch-conservative puppets here and there–such as the FDA–and hey, your rhetoric and dogma now dictates public policy.

This entry posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc.. Bookmark the permalink. 

3 Responses to Anti-Choice lapdog up for a vote to be the FDA commissioner

  1. Pingback: Feministe » You Read This Because I’m Too Lazy To Write

  2. 2
    hmmm says:

    I was happy to see the Democratic Leadership in the House and the Senate raise a big stink about this.

    Then I woke up.

  3. 3
    And Yet says:

    I don’t know Dr. Crawford’s position/ideology, however, I was disheartened and disapointed to see that one of the criticisms over his nomination was that he isn’t a physician. It’s about time other approaches and backgrounds were involved in running and protecting the nations health.
    He is a veterinarian, and a pharmacist. Given that this is the Food and Drug Administration, I would think that makes his training a unique qualifier (not speaking at all to idealogy or political/industry issues with the nomination) As a veterinarian engaged in public health research, I would point out that most physicians have little knowledge of pharmaceuticals beyond those they routinely prescribe, and little research exposure. Veterinarians are trained anatomy, physiology, and diseases of multiple species, including primates, as well as being trained in public health, population medicine, food safety, and in the health of animals which are part of the food supply. Additionally, we are trained in zoonosis- animal – human disease transmission. Add to this a background in pharmacology and knowledge of the drug development process, what is the criticism? That he might actually bridge the gap and work towards a more one medicine approach that recognizes that human and animal health are intertwined and interrelated? For this reason alone, I applaud his nomination.
    However, I hope that he will be evaluated fully on his ideology and commitment to the promotion of the public’s good, not his own personal political benefit, and on this basis appointed or rejected.