Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
There's Got to Be a Morning-After Pill For 17 Year-Olds
A lawsuit has partially reversed a Bush admin edict restricting over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" pills to women under the age of 18 years.
The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it would accept, not appeal, a federal judge's order that lifts Bush administration restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of "Plan B" to women 18 and older. U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled last month in a lawsuit filed in New York that President George W. Bush's appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to restrict over-the-counter access.
Women's groups said the FDA's action was long overdue, since the agency's own medical reviewers had initially recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions....
Conservatives said politics drove the decision.
Well, duh. Politics is known to drive a lot of decisions in the er, political realm, including the Bush administration's original decision to keep the bill away from people who might have use for it:
In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23-4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions.
The Bush folks originally didn't want to let anyone get the drug without a prescription and then eventually decided on a behind-the-counter scenario for those 18 and over.
Random thoughts about letting the contraceptive known as Plan B more available: First, though it's often confused with RU-486, a.k.a. "the abortion pill," it is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient; it's essentially a super-duper birth-control pill that works by stopping ovulation or fertilization. So it doesn't raise the same questions as abortion does.
Second, there appears to be virtually no connection between access to Plan B and increased sexual activity (that's one of the fears of conservatives).
Third, while the Plan B fooferaw has generally (and accurately) been seen as a case where conservatives have stood in the way of standard medical and scientific approval processes, liberals would do well to note the FDA's role in all of this. That is, when you give a government agency monopoly control over the drug-approval process, you're not only going to get highly politicized science and medicine, you're going to get highly politicized science and medicine that might just go against what you want. The FDA is an agency whose very mission of protecting Americans is highly dubious as a general proposition and whose actions often clearly work against the interests of sick people.
President Obama has already shown a tremendous deficit of vision when it comes to budget-cutting, transportation policy, and energy policy. Here's hoping that when he turns his laser-like ability to resurrect failed ideas from the past with regard to medicine, he actually does something different and allows more methods of testing and providing drugs, not fewer. But don't count on it.
Update: Here's The Onion in 2007 on Plan C, a pill that re-impregnates guilt-ridden women.
matthew h writes below:
I reject the science versus politics dichotomy. Neither decision is more "scientific." Questions of drug availability via a regulation is a policy ie sociopolitical values question, always. It's not like scientists in white lab coats in a government agency are some new neutral science clergy, giving apolitical decisions of true right and wrong. My general policy is to err in favor favor greater availability of drugs for individual choice (I do get the abortifacient distinctions). But it's not more "scientific" of me or FDA to do so. I just have better politics/policy.
I agree and was not implying that science (or even science!) can solve (m)any policy issues. I should have written above that when the state has a monopoly over the drug-approval process, you not only get highly politicized sciece but highly scientized politics, which might even be worse given the inevitable pretense to absolute knowledge. Recommended reading on that topic: Hayek's The Counter-revolution of Science: Studies on the abuse of reason.
Anonymous|4.24.09 @ 8:03AM|#
Here's hoping
Might as well. Nothing good is going to happen in reality.
|4.24.09 @ 8:11AM|#
it is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient; it's
essentially a super-duper birth-control pill that works by stopping
ovulation or fertilization. So it doesn't raise the same questions
as abortion does.
I am pro-choice, and pro-access to this or any other family
planning method, but this statement is not correct. Many doctors
believe MAC can be effective through preventing implantation of a
fertilized embryo. That makes it possible that using MAC could
result in an abortion. Which I'm ok with.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 8:19AM|#
The Onion had a story about Plan C the other day. The future is just around the corner.
|4.24.09 @ 8:33AM|#
It is amazing how often the Onion scoops the story of the day before it happens. Their writers are a mix between SNL and Nostrodamus...
Telly|4.24.09 @ 8:38AM|#
It's to protect them after those strip searches they get from
the principal when they take Advil to school with them.
Advil is so much more serious, you know.
|4.24.09 @ 8:42AM|#
I reject the science versus politics dichotomy. Neither decision is more "scientific." Questions of drug availability via a regulation is a policy ie sociopolitical values question, always. It's not like scientists in white lab coats in a government agency are some new neutral science clergy, giving apolitical decisions of true right and wrong. My general policy is to err in favor favor greater availability of drugs for individual choice (I do get the abortifacient distinctions). But it's not more "scientific" of me or FDA to do so. I just have better politics/policy.
|4.24.09 @ 8:48AM|#
matthew h,
I agree, when you get dragged into debateing the science as part of
a policy discussion, you almost always tacitly concede that the
ends can justify the means.
Mike in PA|4.24.09 @ 8:49AM|#
I'm all in favor of any type of drug. The more choice the
better. It's just sad to me that so many choose
irresponsibility.
Plan A has to fail to even consider a plan B.
I don't think we should be trying to legislate responsibility, but
I also don't like any "easy-way-outs" for irresponsibility. I can
see conservatives' point on this - I just think their desire to get
the government involved is wrong.
Funny, I say the same things about the democrats.
Mad Max|4.24.09 @ 8:54AM|#
'there appears to be virtually no connection between access to
Plan B and increased sexual activity (that's one of the fears of
conservatives).'
I thought that liberals cared about sexual morality, too - and that
claims to the contrary were simply hot air from the right-wing
noise machine.
And here is how the link paraphrases the relevant study:
'women who had Plan B at home were no more likely to engage in
*unprotected* sex than those whose access was restricted.'
[emphasis added]
And there's this, too, from the same study as summarized in the
same link:
'Interestingly, the study found "women in the pharmacy access and
advance provision groups did not experience a significant reduction
in pregnancy rate." This undercuts the hope of Plan B proponents
that wider use of the pills could cut in half the nation's 3
million unintended pregnancies each year and in turn prevent
hundreds of thousands of abortions.'
Now, I think that regulating what pharmacies sell over the counter
is a state, not a federal, issue. There's that whole 10th Amendment
thing.
I believe that the states ought to protect underage persons from
this drug. By "underage persons," I don't only mean 17-year-old
girls, but just-conceived human beings.
|4.24.09 @ 8:55AM|#
Plan B is to "'easy-way-out' for irresponsibility"
As Advil is to easy-way-out for binge drinking
Mad Max|4.24.09 @ 8:56AM|#
'Questions of drug availability via a regulation is a policy ie
sociopolitical values question, always. It's not like scientists in
white lab coats in a government agency are some new neutral science
clergy, giving apolitical decisions of true right and wrong.'
You are disrespecting the clergy? Heretic!
|4.24.09 @ 8:57AM|#
I'm all in favor of any type of drug. The more choice the
better. It's just sad to me that so many choose
irresponsibility.
A condom breaking isn't irresponsible. Having a child you can't
care for because a condom broke is.
|4.24.09 @ 9:02AM|#
Since my point wasn't even clear to myself, I'll try
again.
I don't think we should be trying to legislate responsibility,
but I also don't like any "easy-way-outs" for
irresponsibility.
Artificially restricting methods to deal with unintended
consequences just because they are easy is a silly way to engineer
society. It's also futile.
Mike in PA|4.24.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Yeah, I agree - which is the second part of that post.
But if there's an Advil that completely takes away any headache, it
kinda erases the need for reponsibility.
I can't tell you how many times I've woken up after a hard night's
drinking and said "Damn, I better take it easy next time."
After that, it might be a whole week before I do that again!
Again though, my irresponsibility - my consequences. I can accept
that.
Anonymous|4.24.09 @ 9:10AM|#
It's not like scientists in white lab coats in a government
agency are some new neutral science clergy, giving apolitical
decisions of true right and wrong.
But... but... government by experts! If we don't have experts to
reveal Truth, then we're just monkeys!
|4.24.09 @ 9:12AM|#
But if there's an Advil that completely takes away any
headache, it kinda erases the need for reponsibility.
Yeah, but that's a good thing, right? I mean, the bad part about a
hangover is that it hurts - so if you can eliminate that - it's not
irresponsible to have that extra drink, no?
|4.24.09 @ 9:15AM|#
PA Mike,
I think we're 99% in agreement. But if Method X removes
all negative consequences of Action A, then Action A is no
longer irresponsible.
(Not that Plan B or Advil are perfect.) I'm with ya.
|4.24.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Nick, you say this:
Second, there appears to be virtually no connection between access to Plan B and increased sexual activity (that's one of the fears of conservatives).
But in your link, Ron Bailey says that the study in question says
this:
Also, women who had Plan B at home were no more likely to engage in unprotected sex than those whose access was restricted.
That's a different proposition. It is a welcome result, to be sure,
that people who have Plan B easily available aren't relying on it
alone. It's a slightly different scientific question about whether
they're having more sex overall-- the science is fairly well
established that people with more access to contraception in
general have more sex overall.
It's also fairly well established that, apparently unlike Plan B,
access to abortion does increase the number of unwanted pregnancies
that are then aborted. It doesn't increase the number of unwanted
pregnancies that are then born, but there is still that effect.
Steve Levitt's paper on abortion makes explicit reference to this
effect and cites it, even while arguing in favor of abortion
legalization since the total number of unwanted children decreased,
even though the number of unwanted pregnancies increased.
I have no problems with the ruling or the availability, but you
shouldn't give a false impression of the science either.
|4.24.09 @ 9:30AM|#
"First, though it's often confused with RU-486, a.k.a. "the
abortion pill," it is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient;"
Does anyone know if this is correct? Isn't "Plan-B" simply RU-486
renamed? Isn't it the exact same drug? I have tried to educate
myself about this but what I have read seems incomplete. It sure
seems to me like they have simply renamed the same drug, and claim
that "as long as you don't take it too long after sex" it is not an
abortifacient. Oh, well, that changes everything. It isn't an
abortifacient because the label instructed you not to use it then?
Cyanide isn't really a poison as long as you only ingest a
little?
|4.24.09 @ 9:30AM|#
A lawsuit has partially reversed a Bush admin edict
restricting over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" pills to
women under the age of 18 years.
Women? I think they are usually referred to as "girls". Guess it
all depends on your agenda. I'm not against this plan - just have a
distaste for selectively misapplied labels.
Women's groups said the FDA's action was long
overdue
Oh great, the women's groups are, as usual, all for "women's"
control over their own bodies...provided the discussion hinges
around abortion and does not veer towards other body rights like
recreational drug use.
Epicurus|4.24.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Mad Max: "I think that regulating what pharmacies sell over the
counter is a state, not a federal, issue."
We couldn't buy rubbers (or any other contraceptive) in many states
if it were left up to state legislatures and the "will of the
people." See Griswold v. Connecticut. Texas has abstinence-only sex
education, thanks to the majority, and, surprise, the highest teen
pregnancy rate in the nation.
|4.24.09 @ 9:33AM|#
the science is fairly well established that people with more
access to contraception in general have more sex
overall.
Blasphemer!!! Re-education camp for you.
|4.24.09 @ 9:34AM|#
How about you drunks show some responsibility and refrain from curing your hangovers with liver damaging pills. Buck it up like I do.
|4.24.09 @ 9:39AM|#
the science is fairly well established that people with more
access to contraception in general have more sex
overall.
I've always viewed this fact as one of the big benefits.
Which reminds me:
I thought that liberals cared about sexual morality, too - and
that claims to the contrary were simply hot air from the right-wing
noise machine.
Mad Max: what do you mean by sexual morality? Having less sex? Only
for reproductive purposes? only within marriage?
♪|4.24.09 @ 9:40AM|#
There's Got to Be a Morning-After Pill For 17 Year-Olds
As much as you might sometimes want a morning-after pill for 17
year-olds, by the time they are 17 years old, I would definitely
say it is too late. You can't take a pill and make them go
away.
Mark Twain|4.24.09 @ 9:46AM|#
As much as you might sometimes want a morning-after pill for
17 year-olds, by the time they are 17 years old, I would definitely
say it is too late. You can't take a pill and make them go
away.
That's why you raise them in a barrel, and feed them through the
bung hole.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 9:46AM|#
MG,
Does anyone know if this is correct? Isn't "Plan-B" simply
RU-486 renamed? Isn't it the exact same drug?
IIRC, from Loveline it is a bigger dose of a normal birth
control pill. It will not stop a pregnancy after implantation.
|4.24.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Marshall Gill
RU-486 is a synthetic steriod marketed under the trade name
Mifepristone.
11β-[p-(Dimethylamino)phenyl]-17β-hydroxy-17-(1-propynyl)estra-4,9-dien-3-one
The active ingrediant in Plan B is levonorgestrel, a synthetic
progestogen that is used in most hormonal birth control.
13-ethyl-17-ethynyl-17-hydroxy 1,2,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,
17-tetradecahydrocyclopenta[a] phenanthren-3-one
People that tell you they are the same drug are lying to you.
|4.24.09 @ 9:49AM|#
How about you drunks show some responsibility and refrain
from curing your hangovers with liver damaging pills. Buck it up
like I do.
Asprin, dude. works a treat, saves the liver.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|4.24.09 @ 9:55AM|#
The best hangover cure is a pint of water before you pass out/go to sleep.
If you don't need at least a quart of Gatoraid and a multivitamin
you weren't really trying.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 9:55AM|#
The best hangover cure is a pint of water before you pass
out/go to sleep.
A good preventative measure is drinking water as you drink alcohol.
Just alternate between the two.
|4.24.09 @ 9:59AM|#
A good preventative measure is drinking water as you drink
alcohol. Just alternate between the two.
Yep. I wish I could impart all my drunk knowledge down to my
younger self. And all the telltale signs of women with low
self-esteem.
|4.24.09 @ 10:01AM|#
Yep. I wish I could impart all my drunk knowledge down to my
younger self. And all the telltale signs of women with low
self-esteem.
I think the same thing. Every single day.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 10:03AM|#
SF,
MNG was picking on your and Naga's ninja chick this morning a few
threads down. She (MNG) has sunk to new depths of stupid.
It is on a pot thread about Jim Webb.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|4.24.09 @ 10:04AM|#
And Pedialite is better than Gatorade: less sugar.
Noted for future reference. Thanks.
'Course I have Gatorade in the house already.
|4.24.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Whisky with water, then water then full night's sleep works for me. Of course most people don't get to start at 4:00, and be sloppy by 8:00.
|4.24.09 @ 10:07AM|#
Anybody going to the WTO protest tomorrow? Or is it World
Bank?
I think there is some "end the fed" protest by the NYC libertarians
today - is that what you mean?
Mad Max|4.24.09 @ 10:08AM|#
'Texas has abstinence-only sex education, thanks to the
majority, and, surprise, the highest teen pregnancy rate in the
nation.'
Everything's bigger in Texas! But did Texas ban contraceptives? I
don't think so.
Coeducation tends to more than cancel out the effects of a weekly
abstinence seminar.
Of course, coeducation is sacred and holy, and must not be
questioned.
|4.24.09 @ 10:09AM|#
Of course, if we really played by the rules of the game we'd all be drunk by noon.
Medic|4.24.09 @ 10:16AM|#
I'm still confused as to why people don't want free acess to a
morning after pill. wouldn't that cut down on unwanted births, the
flooding of the ( horrible) foster system, less abandonded babies,
less teens dropping out of school and better morale all
around...
oh wait I forgot I live in the 12th cnt in this country.
|4.24.09 @ 10:20AM|#
Coeducation tends to more than cancel out the effects of a
weekly abstinence seminar.
So does four beers, and a miniskirt.
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 10:33AM|#
domo,
I think there is some "end the fed" protest by the NYC
libertarians today - is that what you mean
No, the DC one. Might be the same thing in both places. I just go
to watch the freaks scream and act stupid.
dhex|4.24.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"Of course, coeducation is sacred and holy, and must not be
questioned."
seeing as the world is co-educational, it's probably something
people should get used to.
|4.24.09 @ 10:36AM|#
seeing as the world is co-educational, it's probably
something people should get used to.
Or we could strive to make the world male/female segregated to
avoid prurient thoughts that can lead to defiling ones body with
sexual pleasure.
|4.24.09 @ 10:42AM|#
I just go to watch the freaks scream and act
stupid.
I tried my "pro fed" position on my NYC local, and they looked at
me like I was a communist infiltrator trying to steal their gold
bars...
Epicurus|4.24.09 @ 11:11AM|#
"But did Texas ban contraceptives?"
They can't thanks to Griswold v. Connecticut. But kids need
instruction on their existence, use and efficacy, like they need
instruction on about everything else.
"Coeducation tends to more than cancel out the effects of a weekly
abstinence seminar. Of course, coeducation is sacred and holy, and
must not be questioned."
Ban coeducation and make females wear burkas too. And make it a
crime for a female to be in the company of unrelated males without
the presence of her husband or father.
|4.24.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Mad Max-
How about "the whole 9th amendment thing?"
Individual choice. Translation: God gave us free will. This gift is
not subject to Caesar's "reasonable regulations."
Epicurus|4.24.09 @ 11:21AM|#
"I'm still confused as to why people don't want free access to a
morning after pill."
Stupidity.
Mad Max|4.24.09 @ 11:44AM|#
libertymike,
Quit mixing Church and State!
'seeing as the world is co-educational, it's probably something
people should get used to.'
Yet, curiously, there have traditionally been many single-sex
schools, and there's even a few here in the USA. So when does the
fabric of the universe come undone, or the Taliban rampage through
the suburbs throwing acid on unveiled women's faces?
dhex|4.24.09 @ 12:13PM|#
probably about 15 minutes after the christofascist agenda takes
control of...hey WAIT A MINUTE! that's a false dilemma you're
offering there!
i won't be fooled by your neo-osirian shenanigans, mister!
anyway, people are free to single-genderize their kids if they so
choose at a number of religious education facilities. there's
probably some private school versions as well.
but most of working world, for example, involves mixing with men
and women. and if you're involved in pet therapy, pets.
Colonel_Angus|4.24.09 @ 12:45PM|#
I thought I have heard that the Plan B drug fucks with the woman's mood for several days. In other words, not something that any decent person would make a habit of using regularly just so they can have more unprotected sex. If this is true, I call bullshit on the idea that access to it increases sexual activity.
|4.24.09 @ 12:48PM|#
I think this is a step in the right direction. Nobody should be denying the woman a right to the pill because of her age. Not suprisingly, conservatives are referring to this as the 'abortion pill' http://www.newsy.com/videos/plan_b_the_new_plan_a/
High Every Body|4.24.09 @ 12:49PM|#
I thought I have heard that the Plan B drug fucks with the
woman's mood for several days.
Some women are just like that. Keeping them drunk helps.
Mad Max|4.24.09 @ 2:10PM|#
dhex,
Pets? Sorry, I'm not following. (Unless you're saying cats and dogs
should go to obedience school together. After all, cats and dogs
will have to live in the same society after graduation.)
Back to single-sex schools:
Single-sexers
marshal some impressive evidence in favor of the academic
advantages of same-sex education.
I don't know the comparative pregnancy rates among girls at coed
schools v. girls' schools, but at a single-sex school, you're less
likely to get pregnant from someone you met in a school-related
context. Like that Greek doctor guy said - first, do no harm.
As for the Taliban, they're just as against girls' schools as any
NOW board member.
Perhaps the Taliban has been getting the wrong ideas from this film from
documentary filmmaker Britney Fox.
|4.24.09 @ 3:09PM|#
I thought I have heard that the Plan B drug fucks with the
woman's mood for several days.
It made my girlfriend royally pissed off for a week. Or maybe she
was just a bitch.
Mike in PA|4.24.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Can we at least agree that plan A is better? I'd like to see us promote that one - on EVERY issue!
Epicurus|4.24.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"the science is fairly well established that people with more
access to contraception in general have more sex overall."
Well hell yeah. Isn't that why they were invented?
mb|4.24.09 @ 3:59PM|#
the author should have provided his working definition of "abortifacient". As domoarrigoto pointed out, his definition and information was lacking. also, there is a moral difference between natural embryo loss and intentional embryo loss that bears consideration.
Quine|4.24.09 @ 4:15PM|#
You need to pick another letter, JB. Plan Z has been well
established for some time.
http://jjrowland.com/wigu/20051221.html
Kathryn |4.24.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Many doctors believe MAC can be effective through preventing
implantation of a fertilized embryo
They can believe what they want: it doesn't.
Here is P.Z. Myers explaining "the hormonal control of the
menstrual cycle." If you follow it through, you'll see where Plan B
can or can't have an effect in the menstrual cycle... "Plan B
doesn't help if one is already pregnant, and it doesn't affect any
implanted zygotes. Pregnant women produce progesterone
naturally."
dhex|4.24.09 @ 11:15PM|#
the national association for single sex education is in favor of
single sex education?
stop pulling my leg.
|4.26.09 @ 10:59PM|#
I'm still waiting for Plan Z. A pill I take that aborts every
Democrat I see.
Plan z has to do with aborting zombies.
find another one to do with aborting Dems
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245