Wendy Wright the executive vice-president of the Concerned Women for America, praises the FDA for stalling on the Plan B decision. The FDA as you know has been dragging-its-feet on purpose and putting-off making a decision on making Plan B over-the-counter, in order to please the anti-reproductive-rights advocates, who clearly have a pretty tight leash on them and loves to crack the whip. Anyway, here’s Wright’s praise….
[…]Thankfully, FDA’s leadership considered that making the drug easy to get would cause health risks to women and girls. It declined Barr Laboratories’ application because the company never bothered to adequately research if it could be used safely by teenagers.
Parents can be comforted knowing that FDA leadership stepped in when other officials ignored evidence of how easy access poses a threat to adolescents.
Plan B is a high dose of the birth control pill. The low dose requires a prescription … for good reasons. It has known medical risks. Doctors screen women for medical conditions before prescribing either pill and check for symptomless sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), which can lead to infertility or even death.
In pursuit of more sales, advocates encourage multiple sex partners and frequent use, without concern for putting women at risk of STDs. Ads for Plan B in college newspapers pictured members of a fraternity with the caption, “So many men. So many reasons to have back-up contraception.”
Ah, the usual “Plan B will make your daughters into whores, once they go off to college, and go on Spring Break down in Florida” line. Anti-reproductive rights (and anti-women-rights) ideologues such as the CWA have a penchant for using the Madonna/Whore cliche and scare-tactic to shame young women (and dupe their parents) about using emergency contraception. And pretty much just shaming them for *gasp* having sex for purposes other than procreation– even if it doesn’t fit the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ illusion the anti-reproductive-rights ideologues stereotype all sexually active young women of being.
Studies … even those by Plan B advocates … show that easy access does not reduce pregnancies or abortions. In England, STD rates skyrocketed. In Sweden, teen abortions increased. In Thailand, the most frequent buyers of the drug are men, who sometimes slip it to women without their knowledge.
Sexually abused minors need adults to rescue them. If an adolescent seeks Plan B, doctors can ask questions. If it can be obtained without a prescription, what may be the best chance of freeing her and catching her abuser would be eliminated.[…]
That “what” is her carrying the pregnancy to full term– forced to incubate the genetic material of her abuser. Her word and testimony simply aren’t good enough for these people. And apparently other physical evidence of abuse isn’t enough. They just want that fetus. Even if she’s fifteen, fourteen, or simply unwilling to carry the pregnancy to full term– oh well. I’m sure the CWA would throw a baby-shower for her.
A true example of politics driving the FDA occurred when Bill Clinton ordered the agency to begin approving RU-486, the abortion pill, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pressured the FDA to drop safety precautions on it. Numerous violations were committed to approve RU-486, and five women (four of Boxer’s constituents) are dead due to it.
Because those women should have died in childbirth. It’s so much more natural and what a “good Christian woman” would do.
Good public health, science and common sense rule against making Plan B as easy to get as toothpaste.
Please. Anti-reproductive-rights politics subverting real science, thanks to the religious- and social-conservative ideologues who have a vice-grip on the FDA (and another thanks to the Bush Administration), prevented Plan B from being OTC. And puritanical, Bible-thumping wingnuts like the CWA don’t know the meaning of the words “good science” and sure as hell don’t give a damn about women’s health (or their right not be an incubator against their will).
If they understand that Plan B is not the abortion pill, which at least the author you quoted seems to, whence the refusal by some pharmacists to fill the presecription? Do those same pharmacists also refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and / or ring up condoms / spermicide for the same reasons?
If so, I have a further question: why do they still have jobs?
Let’s say a Muslim woman wants to work at a grocery store. She refuses to ring up any customer’s pork products for religious reasons, and encourages them to simply put them back and not eat ham, bacon or pork chops, because she will not sell it to them. Would anyone defend her right to her beliefs in this case and allow her to continue working there?
So why does anyone still defend these pharmacists who think it is their right and their role to decide what products and / or medications women should or shouldn’t have access to? Why are they allowed to get away with it? Why do they keep their jobs?
The only thing in her post I agree with is her statement that The Pill has some health risks. As a person who cannot use this particular form of birth control for health reasons, I would agree that some data should be gathered about the risks of one-time use of a large dose of the same drug, especially in teenagers, if it hasn’t already. However, I don’t think the manufacturer failed to get that particular dataset (if they did) because they’re trying to turn our adolescents into sluts, which is ridiculous. The human testing protocols for minors are very strict, and such tests are expensive, so the company probably hoped they good get approval without the data.
Is the ad she talks about a real ad?
Data is available on the risks of one-time use of Plan B, and the risks are essentially nil. Still, I might not recommend its use in women who are known to have Factor V Leiden mutation and a history of thrombi/thromboemboli. That just isn’t that common.
Doctors screen patients who come in to get ordinary oral contraceptives because, for many women, this is their only doctor’s visit. Thus, this is the time to do a general physical exam, do a Pap smear, breast exam, etc. The Pill-specific questions involve smoking and propensity for clotting. That’s about one minute or less of questions specifically directed towards relative contraindications for Pill use.
First, a disclaimer: I believe (strongly) that Plan B should be available over the counter.
However, I’m having some trouble with this post.
I believe the “what” that is being refered to in the second portion of quote, second paragraph, is the opportunity for a medical professional to intervene on behalf of the safety of a minor, not the forcing of a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term.
Also, to make something available over the counter, do you not still have to talk with a pharmacist (like codine, here in Canada)? Which would make it substancially more difficult to obtain than toothpaste, which is (unless there’s some new, wacky stuff out there) available off the shelf?
I think Wright’s arguments also lack logic, support and basic sanity, but I would challenge you to re-write this post in a less emotional tone, to see if you can clarify some arguments that are less based on hype/emotional reactions and more on logic, to avoid falling into the same trap as your opponent.
If that ad with the fraternity members is real, feminists have at least as much reason to be upset about it as conservatives do. That’s reprehensible. I wouldn’t ignore such a disgusting, misogynist ad just because some rightwingers dislike it as well.
I agree with Wookie, overall. I think that having Plan B over the counter *probably* would be a good idea (though considering the gambles drug companies make with women’s health to make a quick buck, I’m still skeptical) but you’re putting words in the opposition’s mouth. Disagree as I might with conservatives on many aspects of this issue, I don’t think that this particular woman is the monster you’re making her out to be and in particular, your reading of “what” is just downright wrong. She wants doctors to get a chance to find out that a girl is being abused, not to force them into some kind of breeding program. It’s VERY clear from the context that that is what she is actually saying, and it’s really bad form to pretend otherwise.
The idea that no one should not have access to emergency birth control without a prescription, so that teenage girls who are being sexually abused who seek out emergency contraceptives will go to a doctor, where their abuse will have a chance of being discovered, is simply bizarre. Surely there are a million ways to heighten detection of child sexual abuse without crippling the freedom of so many adult women. No wonder PA didn’t read it that way. The correct and intended meaning just doesn’t make any sense.
Ditto all the “what” comments. Other than that, I liked the post. My gripe with most of the opposition to making Plan B available over the counter is that their arguments solely address concerns with minors. However, the FDA dragging their feet like this is preventing adults who can make such decisions from getting access. I think groups like the CWA would be better served by focusing their efforts on getting regulations of Plan B passed (i.e., restricting OTC purchases to those 18 and older) instead of just blocking the approval entirely.
And wookie, here in the States, when something is available OTC, you do not have to speak to a pharmacist. Some stores could choose to keep it behind the checkout clerk’s counter so you specifically have to ask for it. They could then ask for proof of age before selling it to you. That’s how tobacco and (in some stores) condoms are handled. But that’s it. You only speak to the clerk, not a pharmacist.
For those who are interested, here’s a link to the ads that were referenced, straight from the horse’s mouth (the ad agency that created them):
http://www.basshowes.com/ia_portfolio_item.asp?id=186
Sexually abused minors need adults to rescue them. If an adolescent seeks Plan B, doctors can ask questions. If it can be obtained without a prescription, what may be the best chance of freeing her and catching her abuser would be eliminated. And the abuser could buy the drug himself, no questions asked.
So, the reasoning here is not that Plan B is dangerous, but that in order to rescue female minors and catch their abusers, adult women should do without a proven safe method of birth control.
Side effects for “Plan B”, which taper off after a day or two, include:breast tenderness, irregular bleeding, dizziness, headache, nausea, pain in the abdomen, and tiredness.
Another concern seems to be that an abuser will buy the drug to cover up abuse. In the USA article it is noted that:”In Thailand, the most frequent buyers of the drug are men, who sometimes slip it to women without their knowledge.” Well, instead of not allowing women to buy it OTC, how about just not allowing men to buy it at all?
Turning down the application because it hadn’t been adequately tested in teenagers seems like a red herring to me. Why couldn’t they simply approve it for use on non-teenagers only, and then request more data before approving it for teenagers?
I mean, obviously there’s another agenda here, but is there a legal bar to what I’ve described?
Why couldn’t they simply approve it for use on non-teenagers only, and then request more data before approving it for teenagers?
Because this way the “anti-choice” folks can use their fall back position with regards to any method of birth control or even abortion itself: They are not denying women anything, they are simply protecting the [*insert appropriate term from list here].
*minor, child, baby, pre-born, fetus, embryo, blastocyst, zygote, ovum, spermatozoon…
Turning down the application because it hadn’t been adequately tested in teenagers seems like a red herring to me. Why couldn’t they simply approve it for use on non-teenagers only, and then request more data before approving it for teenagers?
The second application which is the one now under consideration does just that. It should have gone right through since it met the only objection but rather than approve that one, the FDA has sent it into regulation hell by saying that, unlike all other dual drugs, this one has to go through a regulation process. The reason for their doing that, according to Susan Woods the FDA official who resigned over the handling of Plan B said is that the way “it’s going to be years before we get through this.”
Does anyone else find it laughably unlikely that a minor would or could simply call up a doctor, get herself to the appointment, and pay for it, no questions asked? Particularly in a case of parentsl abuse.
> Sexually abused minors need adults to rescue them. If
> an adolescent seeks Plan B, doctors can ask questions.
> If it can be obtained without a prescription, what may be
> the best chance of freeing her and catching her abuser
> would be eliminated.[…]
Reading this stupidity hurts my brain.
Rebecca
I heard about this on NPR a few weeks ago.
There was a very good interview with one of the guys who had voted to keep Plan B prescription only. He came across so lame and couldn’t even defend himself against the scientist.
Sex is a HEALTH issue and NOT a moral one. Those republicans seem to want the government in our bedrooms and out of public health care.
I’m just glad I got the IUD – wouldn’t the next “step” be for those wackos to assume that The Pill is “abortion” since it’s the weaker dose of pretty much the same hormones that are in Plan B?
Jessie, I’d disagree that sex is only a health issue and not a moral one. I’d say that sex is definitely a moral issue as well. But I would also say that it’s not necessarily within the government’s scope to regulate morality – I quite agree that the government should stay out of the bedroom, as long as what goes on in there is voluntary with all parties concerned.
If the pharmacist in question owns the pharmacy then no he doesn’t have to sell Plan B if he doesn’t want to. Unfortunately that is his right. I’ll bet that Catholic hospital pharmacies, Wal-Mart, and a few other retailers won’t carry it if it gets approved.
I just lost my favorite medical provider in my town because the Catholic hopital bought them out. I’m not comfortable with other people’s religions in my medical decisions.