The politics of birth control can produce unusual allies. Take Monday’s ruling in federal district court in New York, overturning the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on selling the morning after Plan B contraceptive over the counter to women younger than 18.
The judge in that case, Edward Korman, scathingly criticized several Health and Human Services and FDA officials for bowing to “pressure” from President George W. Bush’s White House and its “constituents,” and for using “political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications” to hold up nonprescription sales of the birth control drug for years.
In a 52-page ruling, Korman sounded like a speechwriter for President Barack Obama, accusing the FDA and the Bush administration of tossing science under the bus to “appease” conservative supporters of Bush in Congress and the Republican Party.
But Judge Korman is no leftover liberal from Bill Clinton’s era—he’s an appointee of Ronald Reagan, and long before that, was in the Justice Department under President Richard Nixon…
Meantime, if the Obama White House does not appeal the ruling, it will mark the fourth significant departure from the Bush administration’s positions on controversial health-care issues since Obama’s inauguration. The other three decisions allow federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research and for international aid groups that offer abortion counseling, and a move to lift the rule that would let medical personnel shun abortion-related services on the basis of their conscience.
Only controversial to nutballs who think we should live under a theocracy.
Key question: which “way” is political?
Of course, ALL ISSUES, are political, or have a political component, or can be MADE political.
In this instance, the FDA’s delay was MAKING an issue political and the judge acted correctly to stop the Bush BS.
The politics of the issue were RESOLVED when congress passed the law or maintained a law that such drugs could be sold to kiddies. The Bush F&cktarded Religilous Base was pandered to by the FDA whose ONLY ROLE after the politics was resolved was to follow the approval process. NOT FOLLOWING the approval process is illegal/malfeasance/POLITICAL.
Show me a retard who claims “it’s political” and I’ll show you a repuglican wingnut 9/10 times.
#18–Warden==that’ll make you 1 of the 10.
I think everyone agrees that teenage solo parenthood is disastrous for all concerned. And the options available to teenagers in the predicament shouldn’t be hidden from them.
sounds like big business got to this judge, you know the other part of (oh wait really the only part) of the republican party. the know how much money they are missing out on lost sales due to fundies and company political pressure..
The big money should be pushing for birth control in the public water and prescriptions to counteract it.
>The politics of the issue were RESOLVED when congress passed the law or maintained a law that such drugs could be sold to kiddies.
Bobbo, I don’t think that’s how the drug approval process works.
Here we have a political override of agency scientific decisions, as established by the GAO in reviewing the FDA procedures. However, I’m not convinced that the original approvals aren’t political instead of scientific.
A key part of the approval recommendations was that the reviews concluded that use would not go beyond the recommended literature.
In other words, Plan B will not become Plan A.
Do others here think this is the case?
#25–Mike==that is a very fair comment and even makes sense. Still, even in your scenario, the FDA is simply “not doing its job” which is only to assure safety/efficacy. Whether or not a safe or unsafe drug should be allowed on the market with appropriate cautions is THE POLITICAL question resolved at the legislative level. Once at the FDA, things should go rather fast as the open questions should be only scientific.
If Plan A is contraception taken before sex, I don’t see how Plan B can ever become Plan A. Ironic then I stumbled into Plan C above?
Sure why not? That is, as long as the State is willing to take complete responsibility for the teen’s actions from the parent.
It’s a “no taxation without representation” sort of thing. Parents can’t be held responsible unless they are responsible.
And by the way, that’s exactly why this bit of law doesn’t have a hope of sticking.
It’s quite the laugh how some folks prattle on about how it’s always the responsibility of the parent to supervise or instruct their children to act responsibly so the rest of us can enjoy our inalienable right to no censorship and teen-inappropriate messages on TV, radio, internet, etc. You know, like the Horse Sex Channel – even though none of us would ever watch such a thing. Unless, of course, it was done for art purposes. Like Harry Potter in Equus.
If and when the above law is enacted, it will be clear evidence that 24 hour parental control is, always was, and always will be impossible. And that will lead to the necessity for more nanny-state censorship laws to protect the children.
You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, yes, I know. And that little bit of extra censorship must by definition lead to goose-stepping storm-troopers in our streets.
RBG
25 bobbo. Great idea. Maybe we can also add other noxious chemicals to the water supply under the guise of the greater good and charge a small antidote fee for those wishing for the right to opt out.
I’m thinking chemical castration meds in the water to catch all the sex deviants. That ought to make a tidy profit.
If that proves successful we could research some kind of anti-liberal drug.
RBG
#28–RBG==its rare to see so much gibberish and non-sequiters strung together. I can’t tell what you are for or against. Well Done.
If you have a specific question, bobbo, ask away. I’m always glad to help out the less perceptive as a public service.
RBG
#31–RBG==thank you for the kind invitation:
1. Should Plan B drugs be sold to kiddies without parental notification or not? and why?
32 bobbo. No for the reasons already outlined by #9 Sea Lawyer. It abrogates and hijacks the overarching right for a parent to be responsible for his or her child.
RBG
#33–RBG==So the little kiddie who gets raped by her father is supposed to go to mommy for permission huh?
Control freaks. Always humane.
The notion of supporting parental control is fine for all those cases where it is not needed, but I’ve heard life is like a box of chocolates.
If she is a normal mommy, this should not be a problem. The state is usally the one doing the freaking control as it is attempting to do in this case.
Hard cases make bad law.
It makes the millions of the rest of us suffer inequitably.
RBG
#35–RBG==”If she is a normal mommy, this should not be a problem.” /// What in your fetid imagination thinks a woman married to a child molester is normal, or if normal, would be allowed by the molester to act so?
How are you or anyone else with a normal happy well adjusted family negatively impacted by kiddies from dysfunctional families having the autonomy and good sense to abort unwanted products of conception, if any there be?
My “fetid imagination” is full of ideas that mother’s care for their children. (It’s an evolutionary thing.) It is also the basis for giving parents first responsibility for children instead of the state.
Now imagine a world where laws could be enacted to help fix every single aberrant and unhappy case but also had to apply to everyone else. Nice. And impractical.
Child molesters can be your own good ol’ boy neighbour or co-worker. Presumably that makes you an unfit person as well.
Ah, now I see: “unwanted products.” Like shit & piss, and people who might have disabilities like homosexuality, right?
RBG
#37–RBG–well congrats of a sort. You stayed on subject for two posts. Not bad.
Try again. Same questions. Pretend that not everyone lives the life/has the values or circumstances that you imagine you do.
Listen, if this keeps the Palin kid from another kid – I’m for it!
Now if we can just get Sarah to take it.
38. bobbo. Okay, let’s try that. Parents rule. How did I do?
As it happens, analogies by definition don’t have to be literally on topic, they merely have to illustrate a point that is on topic. In my #28 analogy above I illustrate the hypocrisy of those who feel they have the right to arbitrarily pick and choose when parents have jurisdiction over raising their own children. Glad to help out.
RBG