Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B

[DealMonkey]

It's about time. This case is the sort of routine politicizing of our federal agencies that I've been complaining about non-stop for the past 8 years. There's a lot of things Bush and I disagree on, but this sort of stuff was just totally rampant during his two terms.

Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B
Judge orders FDA to let 17-year-olds use Plan B pill without prescription

By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK March 23, 2009 (AP)

The Food and Drug Administration let politics cloud its judgment when it denied teenage girls over-the-counter access to the Plan B morning-after pill, a federal judge said Monday as he ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds obtain the medication.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman blasted the FDA's handling of the issue during the Bush administration, saying it had "repeatedly and unreasonably" delayed issuing a decision on the medication, marketed by Montvale, N.J.-based Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. as Plan B.

Korman's ruling said the FDA in several instances had delayed issuing a ruling for suspect reasons and on two occasions took action only to facilitate the confirmation of acting FDA commissioners whose confirmations had been held up by the repeated delays.

"These political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned decision-making," Korman said. "Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA's course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug product from prescription to non-prescription use."

He said the FDA's denial of nonprescription access without age restriction went against the recommendation of a committee of experts it had created to advise it on Plan B.

"And the commissioner ? at the behest of political actors ? decided to deny non-prescription access to women 16 and younger before FDA scientific review staff had completed their reviews," Korman wrote.

Korman ordered the FDA to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals, which was bought by Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. late last year, to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18. He said his order must be complied with within 30 days.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by individuals and organizations advocating for wider distribution and access to emergency contraceptives, as well as parents and their minor children seeking access.

[...]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=7151963

Great decision. :thumbsup:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's about time. This case is the sort of routine politicizing of our federal agencies that I've been complaining about non-stop for the past 8 years. There's a lot of things Bush and I disagree on, but this sort of stuff was just totally rampant during his two terms.

Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B
Judge orders FDA to let 17-year-olds use Plan B pill without prescription

By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK March 23, 2009 (AP)

The Food and Drug Administration let politics cloud its judgment when it denied teenage girls over-the-counter access to the Plan B morning-after pill, a federal judge said Monday as he ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds obtain the medication.

U.S. District Judge Edward Korman blasted the FDA's handling of the issue during the Bush administration, saying it had "repeatedly and unreasonably" delayed issuing a decision on the medication, marketed by Montvale, N.J.-based Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. as Plan B.

Korman's ruling said the FDA in several instances had delayed issuing a ruling for suspect reasons and on two occasions took action only to facilitate the confirmation of acting FDA commissioners whose confirmations had been held up by the repeated delays.

"These political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned decision-making," Korman said. "Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA's course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug product from prescription to non-prescription use."

He said the FDA's denial of nonprescription access without age restriction went against the recommendation of a committee of experts it had created to advise it on Plan B.

"And the commissioner ? at the behest of political actors ? decided to deny non-prescription access to women 16 and younger before FDA scientific review staff had completed their reviews," Korman wrote.

Korman ordered the FDA to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals, which was bought by Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. late last year, to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18. He said his order must be complied with within 30 days.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by individuals and organizations advocating for wider distribution and access to emergency contraceptives, as well as parents and their minor children seeking access.

[...]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=7151963

Great decision. :thumbsup:

I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from <deleted> who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

 

[Schadenfroh]

n/m

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from <deleted> who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

 

[WhipperSnapper]

But...b-b-but killing a sixteen-celled zygote without a brain is MURDER! It's murder I tell ya! God says so!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from <deleted> who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I disagree, for the simple reason that strongly religious parents would rather have both their daughter and her child die than for her to have an abortion, it's kind of a Christian honorary murder. You know, like the ones we hear about Muslims doing all the time (even if it's less than 12 a year and each and every one of them are from Indian families in the UK).

It's between her and her doctor, i think the doctor can give better advice than her parents, of course, that would mean that even girls that are sexually active are as free as boys that are sexually active and that is just WRONG in the heads of the utter retarded dipshits.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

But...b-b-but killing a sixteen-celled zygote without a brain is MURDER! It's murder I tell ya! God says so!

I've never got that argument either, i mean, if you're born and don't have a working cerebral cortex you are DEAD but if you are pre-born and don't have a working cerebral cortex you are ALIVE.

Consistency doesn't work, neither does logic nor rationality, it's purely based on idiocy and an idiocy that isn't even based on the Bible which only mentions abortion when God ORDERS it and no where else.

It's what the guy who gave them the koolaid told them and they believe it, it's not Christianity, it's various sects with leaders who they believe in.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from <deleted> who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I disagree, for the simple reason that strongly religious parents would rather have both their daughter and her child die than for her to have an abortion, it's kind of a Christian honorary murder. You know, like the ones we hear about Muslims doing all the time (even if it's less than 12 a year and each and every one of them are from Indian families in the UK).

It's between her and her doctor, i think the doctor can give better advice than her parents, of course, that would mean that even girls that are sexually active are as free as boys that are sexually active and that is just WRONG in the heads of the utter retarded dipshits.

Listen, they're grown up enough to be forced into parenthood regardless of how they got in that predicament.

But definitely not mature enough to make any other decisions at all.

And the beauty of it is, by the time they ARE old enough to make those decisions, it will be too late!

It's like a social-conservative wet-dream!

 

[Double Trouble]

Sorry to interrupt your little circle-jerk over here, but I think you guys are missing the point. The issue here is not if 17 year olds should have this or not, the issue at hand was that the FDA was playing politics instead of doing what it is supposed to do. That's the problem. The FDA - under pressure from the Bush admin I'm sure - was playing political games to delay and prevent this medication. They didn't even listen to the medical expert panels and studies that are done so they can make decisions, they made them purely based on ideology / politics. This judge hit the nail on the head, it's a good ruling.

 

[Hacp]

So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

 

[alchemize]

Sure, let them marry, let them sign contracts, let them drink too.

 

[Harvey]

:thumbsup:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Sure, let them marry, let them sign contracts, let them drink too.

Yup, just change the legal age of being an adult and be done with it.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

You might want to read up on the mechanism of action for emergency contraceptives. It is believed they work by preventing ovulation, so no babies (err, zygotes) are even being "killed."

 

[halik]

God I can't fucking stand it when people push dogma in public policy, especially when it comes to medial and scientific research. I hope this country does let religious fanatics into the White House again.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: halik
God I can't fucking stand it when people push dogma in public policy, especially when it comes to medial and scientific research. I hope this country does let religious fanatics into the White House again.

I just hope that big government does remove all parental consent from everything.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from <deleted> who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- Had a broken condom incident couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B via script. Fucking bushwackos and united states of jebus.

 

[jpeyton]

Change is coming.

:thumbsup: for common sense triumphing yet again.

If they are old enough to have babies, they are old enough to decide whether they want to have the baby or not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- had a scare couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B. Fucking bushwackos.

There is nothing wrong with having parents know what their children are taking.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- had a scare couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B. Fucking bushwackos.

There is nothing wrong with having parents know what their children are taking.

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

I'm going to venture a guess and say no. This implies you only care about the OTC drugs that somehow encroach your dogma. So ultimately you're not concerned about your child's well being, but rather are concerned about following the bible.

I have no problem with parental consent, but in this case, much like with the HPV vaccine, it's got NOTHING to do with health or well being.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Hacp
So a liberal judge gave the license for 17 year olds to kill their own babies? How shocking.

Quoted for stupidity.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- had a scare couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B. Fucking bushwackos.

There is nothing wrong with having parents know what their children are taking.

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

I'm going to venture a guess and say no. This implies you only care about the OTC drugs that somehow encroach your dogma. So ultimately you're not concerned about your child's well being, but rather are concerned about following the bible.

I have no problem with parental consent, but in this case, much like with the HPV vaccine, it's got NOTHING to do with health or well being.

In the case of Plan B, the typical side effects aren't that severe; nausea, vomiting, headaches, breast tenderness, dizziness, fluid retention and irregular bleeding. But you seem to admit that there are times when parental notification is appropriate - where do you draw that line?

 

[aphex]

:thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

The problem I have with this is that minors can get prescription drugs without parental knowledge.

Would any parent here have a problem with your kid receiving, for example, oxycontin, without your knowledge?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it should be available to any woman, regardless of age, under medical supervision.

Not even the most hardcore fanatics on this forum would disagree with this, i think.

Well, apart from butterbean and duwelon who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

Mm, I doubt the ability of a 17 year old girl (having once been one) to know when a side effect is potentially serious and to seek timely help, especially when seeking medical help might interfere with their attempts to keep secrets from their parents. For that reason I think parents should always know what medications their kids are on. Parents are responsible for their health and well being until they are 18.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-cont...cinfo.htm#side-effects

I think doctors and FDA sans holly rolers should decide that. If it's medially safe like any other OTC medicine, then sell it. If you don't want to sell it because of Jebus, go fuck yourself.

<- had a scare couple years ago, had to wait 2 days to get plan B. Fucking bushwackos.

There is nothing wrong with having parents know what their children are taking.

Do you feel the same way about ALL other OTC drugs? Should the law mandate that minors cannot purchase any OTC drugs?

I'm going to venture a guess and say no. This implies you only care about the OTC drugs that somehow encroach your dogma. So ultimately you're not concerned about your child's well being, but rather are concerned about following the bible.

I have no problem with parental consent, but in this case, much like with the HPV vaccine, it's got NOTHING to do with health or well being.

In the case of Plan B, the typical side effects aren't that severe; nausea, vomiting, headaches, breast tenderness, dizziness, fluid retention and irregular bleeding. But you seem to admit that there are times when parental notification is appropriate - where do you draw that line?

Generally for prescription drugs only - if you can buy the meds OTC, it means they are safe and in no way endangering the person's health (otherwise they would be regulated as prescription-only).

Or more generally, government/FDA and the resultant public policy should ONLY be concerned with the health effects of the medication, not whether you are aware that your kid is having sex or not. If the risk and side effects of plan B are on par with zyrtec or tylenol, it should be OTC.

As soon as you start intermingling dogma or any other non-medical B.S. into it, you'll end with garbage public policy that is not in line with the mission statement of that particular regulatory body. I myself had to wait 2 days to obtain a *perfectly safe* drug after a broken condom (a drug with effectiveness widow of 48hrs), simply because W thinks that Jesus thinks I shouldn't be having premarital sex. FUCK. THAT.