Morning-After-Pill Delay
By Eric Jaffa, Tuesday, September 6, 2005
The FDA is delayng the over-the-counter availability of the morning after pill.
The agency is also raising the age of who will ulitmately be able to get it without a prescription from age 16 to 17.
The result will be more surgical abortions, and more girls who induce abortions in unsafe ways.
The explanation of FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford:
In his announcement on Friday, Dr. Crawford said the drug center had found that Plan B could be safely sold over the counter to women 17 and older.
"The criterion in terms of the age limitation has always been is the target population able to interpret the instructions?" Dr. Crawford said. "It's not physiological. Any postpubertal woman would be eligible to use this on prescription basis. The question is at what age do they have the ability to interpret the instructions?"
The label study had included 20 16-year-olds and 28 17-year-olds, and there was no discernible difference in their level of understanding, the company said.
The FDA decision has critics.
Letter published in the Sept. 3 New York Times:
Re "U.S. Again Delays Decision on Sale of Next-Day
Pill" (front page, Aug. 27):
Lester M. Crawford, head of the Food and Drug
Administration, has decided to delay the
over-the-counter sale of the morning-after pill
because the agency could not figure out how to prevent
girls below the age of 17 from obtaining the pill,
apparently because he wonders at what age postpubertal
women "have the ability to interpret the
instructions."
He must have noted how early children learn to use
computers, TV's, CD players and iPods, to say nothing
about instructions that teach children to play soccer,
basketball and so on. Surely, Dr. Crawford, as a
veterinarian, has instructed young children in the
care of animals.
This delay is pure political palaver.
Bertrand M. Bell, M.D.
Bronx, Aug. 27, 2005
The writer is a professor at the Albert Einstein
College of Medicine.
.....................................................................
27 Comments
1. Dr. Bell has nailed the real agenda behind rightwingers...rightwingers are not trusting of teenage girls to take responsibility for lives that don't exist according to leftwingers...it's very frustrating not to be able to exterminate those who don't have passports to live. We need to see their "papers"....(German accent missing due to lack of talent..)
Comment above by Mark Marco (wayne.barrow@comcast.net), Tuba City, Ca, September 6, 2005 12:18 AM |
| 2. Mark Marco - Would you like the morning after pill completely banned?
Comment above by Eric Jaffa, moveleft.com, September 6, 2005 1:28 AM |
| 3. Eric, Bill Maher on "Real Time" had some insight into this, I thought. He thinks Crawford wants to wait to give the drugmakers time to mass produce their own versions of the morning-after pill while the ultra right wingnuts raise a ruckus long enough to buy them time (he also threw in some humor, but that was his take on this).
Comment above by doomsy (ldsy_real@yahoo.com), http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/, bucks county, PA, September 6, 2005 1:39 PM |
| 4. doomsy- Barr grosses a billion a year, but I guess the Bush Admin may want to help even bigger pharmaceutical companies.
Comment above by Eric Jaffa, moveleft.com, September 6, 2005 3:36 PM |
5. Actually, I think this has to do with Religious Right, and that it's not a pro-corporate scheme.
Comment above by Eric Jaffa, moveleft.com, September 6, 2005 3:37 PM |
| 6. Eric- I think the morning after pill should be given to right-wingers so they don't have kids...the final solution for the unwanted... Doomsy- that does make sense, right-wingnuts wanting Pharma-monsters to make money by killing babies...nice analysis! I'll call the New York Times and arrange an editorial... I have to go, I promised my church I'd lobby my congressman for the death penalty......
Comment above by Mark Marco (wayne.barrow@comcast.net), Tuba City, Ca, September 6, 2005 10:56 PM |
7. This is the thing about abortion I can't beleive you people don't see. How in the world can it be a good thing for a MINOR to be able to make this kind of decision by themselves without having a parents consent. And please don't give me the incest arguement becuase it just dosen't hold water. They can't walk into a doctors office and get a face lift or tummy tuck without their parents permition. Why should abortion be any different?
Comment above by wally, September 6, 2005 11:58 PM |
| 8. wally- In most cases, a girl under 18 will discuss a pregnancy with her mother. But if she chooses not to becase she believes her parents would freak out if she told them she was pregnant, it's better if she quickly and safely deals with the situation with the Morning After Pill than if she tries a dangerous method to induce an abortion.
Comment above by Eric Jaffa, moveleft.com, September 7, 2005 10:28 AM |
9. "In most cases..." That's exactly my point. In ALL cases a parent should be involved with making medical decisions for their children. They can't go get a tooth pulled without their permission. Why should they be able to get an abortion? That makes no sense. And I wouldn't exactly call an abortion "safe" either. Many women die every year from complications. I'm sure you're aware of the women that have gotten infections and died after taking the morning after pill. So, saying it's "safe" is probably stretching a bit, don't ya think?
Comment above by wally, September 8, 2005 10:00 AM |
10. I think it's a combination of the corporate interest and the Religious Right. It's sometimes hard to tell them apart. One thing's for sure: money talks.
Comment above by Gary Gray (grayster23@yahoo.com), http://www.24-7-gambling.com, Meridian, CA, September 8, 2005 4:56 PM |
| 11. Gary- I agree with you. The religious right and corporations are almost the same thing except for their differences. Eric- you're right as well. It's better for a girl to avoid a parent's freaking out by exterminating a fetus with a pill rather than exterminating a fetus with a doctor...the important thing is that we avoid "glitches" to our schedule.
Comment above by Mark Marco (wayne.barrow@comcast.net), Tuba City, Ca, September 10, 2005 1:03 AM |
12. So if I understand this correctly (and I like to think i do)They are trying to delay it because teenage girls can get it and not have babys. Isn't that the point considering there is a epidemic among teenagers with pregancy (3 girls in my freshman class last year were either pregant or had children and that was in just one class)So they're using the point of the product to not get the product approved it's so simple and so genius i must say
Comment above by Frank, New Jersey, September 10, 2005 2:20 PM |
13. Frank- Where the hell do you go to school...Larry Flint High?
Comment above by Mark Marco (wayne.barrow@comcast.net), Tuba City, Ca, September 11, 2005 2:50 AM |
14. Bayonne High high school a small city just south of Jersey City
Comment above by Frank, Bayonne,New Jersey, September 11, 2005 12:25 PM |
15. So apparently to you people corporations are devoid of leftists?!?! True, republicans understand better than your freebie-getting/loving-liberal the unfair overregulations and penalities imposed on the producers by liberals with greedy hands in their pockets, but the numbers of liberal vs conservative in the corporate world must be pretty close. Yet to you morons, corporations are evil, instead of the pillars which they are to our economy, society, country, and yes, the free world. Jackasses!
Comment above by James, September 12, 2005 4:20 PM |
16. Gary, as a liberal you would know money talks since you are all for pouring endless tax dollars in the the black hole of the Dept. of Education (and their overseas bank accounts) run by leftists; The Unions (and their overseas bank accounts) run by leftists; Hollywood run by leftists; Big Media run by leftists; All the give-away programs(and their overseas bank accounts)run by leftists; etc. etc. Yeah, money talks alright. Another difference is that these leftists are a monopoly and getting rich all with hard earned American tax dollars you buffoon!Oh, and any tie between corporations and the "religious right..." It's called the good guys.
Comment above by James, September 12, 2005 4:30 PM |
| 17. James- The interest of a corporation is in profits, regardless of what percent of top management is Democrats and what percent is Republicans. Sometimes what makes profits for a corporation coincides with the public interest, but often it doesn't.
Comment above by Eric Jaffa, moveleft.com, September 16, 2005 3:04 PM |
| 18. Eric - Ok, "SOMETIMES" it doesn't serve public interest, be it local or otherwise. I'll concede that; but will point out that there are already laws on the books which are non-partisan which address the various problems. Obviously restrictions and regulations in these areas are a good idea, yet the liberals are taking this to a whole different level (suicidal for American business in the National and world market). And, notice you only concede your second point because someone (I) brought it up. Otherwise you would just encourage that ignorant view as long as the moron[s] vote democrat. The way you people talk you'd think profit is negitive or bad. It is so amazingly pathetic how the little liberal ears perk up when such a word as "profit" is uttered. Regardless of liberal propaganda campaigns, words such as "profit" or "capitalism," "Big Business," "Oil," etc etc. are all really GOOD words for Americans and the world. If you want to talk about envirnomental responsibility you need to start with the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Literally ALL the rest of the world are the worst offenders, yet you liberals would exempt countries like China and the former Soviet Union from the same restrictions imposed on America with the UN proposal (I forget what it is dubbed). And you people wonder why (you know why, yet you are only concerned with imposing your wrongheaded lies on America and Americans)Americans feel you are "Anti-American." Well DUH...YOU ARE!! Just because the republicans wisely(such as Bush)avoid stating this fact due to the attack media hayday that would insue does not excuse you liberals. You people are more concerned with pleasing evil terrorist supporting UN countries than any American interest or values. You're just wrong, about virtually everything. Name one thing you are actually right about that the republicans disagree with, without half-truths and twisting facts, lying, misrepresenting the whole truth; or leaving leaving out 'certain' details... Yet to be done by liberals, because reality is unacceptable to you people. So everything has to be twisted and turned upside down. Just remember: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.." (Jesus Christ). Woe indeed!
Comment above by James, September 19, 2005 7:17 PM |
19. James- God Bless you brother but calm down! Never wear a tux to a hog wallow...you kill the tux and confuse the hog....
Comment above by Mark Marco (wayne.barrow@comcast.net), Tuba City, Ca, September 19, 2005 10:51 PM |
20. The morning after pill is really the perfect answer to reduce the number of abortions each year. It is not in any way killing anything. It just prevents the possiblity of pregnacy. Why would anti abortion groups object to this. It could possibly reduce the killing of babies by as much as half. sounds like a plan to me.
Comment above by mich, October 16, 2005 4:29 AM |
21. How long has this drug been tested? Are there no complications or side effects? Maybe instead of cheapening sex by promoting it in schools to children, you liberals could promote abstinence until marriage. Instead, you liberals want to make fornication free of any personal responsibility and consequences. Basically, making it easier to live a sinful lifestyle and harder to resist.
Comment above by James, November 7, 2005 7:01 PM |
22. Well, for one I am NOT a liberal. I do not believe that schools should be promoting anything sexual. They should be teaching. I do however believe that this pill could reduce the number of abortions that are performed. This pill does not induce abortion; it just prevents the conception. In a perfect world sex would not be a casual thing and children would not be having it before they are old enough to understand anything about marriage and saving yourself and respecting yourself. It is not a perfect world so maybe we should try to do something that stops millions of babies from being aborted.
Comment above by mich, November 14, 2005 7:32 PM |
23. zedmsjyb xuyrhp apmtnsry kyha fsnzt lxchp jgaefr
Comment above by uxzjctgon rughe (kqfi@mail.com), http://www.pmolwjze.gcfu.com, rfoiq, September 7, 2007 4:14 PM |
24. zedmsjyb xuyrhp apmtnsry kyha fsnzt lxchp jgaefr
Comment above by uxzjctgon rughe (kqfi@mail.com), http://www.pmolwjze.gcfu.com, rfoiq, September 7, 2007 4:14 PM |
25. http://meta.missouri.edu/serialize/tmp/@top/hydrocodone/index.html
Comment above by Jak (openbsd@bsd.gr), September 23, 2007 4:54 PM |
26. http://imse.missouri.edu/imse/test/@top/tramadol/purchase-tramadol.html
Comment above by Mister (openbsd@uevora.pt), September 24, 2007 8:53 PM |
27. myfreepaysite home
Comment above by Jak (openbsd@uevora.pt), September 28, 2007 9:10 AM |
|