Judge: 17-Year-Olds Can Have Plan B

[AreaCode707]

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.

Yep, I think that about all OTC drugs. A kid that pops OTC naproxyn all the time on an empty stomach is put at risk of stomach damage, for example, something a high school football player taking meds to reduce inflammation on minor injuries might not know. Some OTC acne medications mess with your hormones and can really screw you up for a period of time, as can birth control meds taken for the sole purpose of regulating your period (removing the morality question). There are plenty of OTC meds that, when mixed with alcohol, become a problem. OTC meds can be used for deliberate overdoses.

OTC doesn't necessarily mean safe; it means safe when taken as directed. Teenagers often lack the ability to accurately project the implications of their actions in the long term future. As a parent, I think it's important that you are at least aware of what your kids are taking and have the opportunity to discuss it with them and help them monitor effects.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

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.

Yep, I think that about all OTC drugs. A kid that pops OTC naproxyn all the time on an empty stomach is put at risk of stomach damage, for example, something a high school football player taking meds to reduce inflammation on minor injuries might not know. Some OTC acne medications mess with your hormones and can really screw you up for a period of time, as can birth control meds taken for the sole purpose of regulating your period (removing the morality question). There are plenty of OTC meds that, when mixed with alcohol, become a problem. OTC meds can be used for deliberate overdoses.

OTC doesn't necessarily mean safe; it means safe when taken as directed. Teenagers often lack the ability to accurately project the implications of their actions in the long term future. As a parent, I think it's important that you are at least aware of what your kids are taking and have the opportunity to discuss it with them and help them monitor effects.

Well then the argument is OTC meds should only be sold to legal adults, not Plan B shouldn't be OTC. If you single out Plan B or any other contraception (I thought birth control is prescription only?), it becomes clear what your motives are.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: halik
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.

I'll answer this with a resounding yes, I would prefer it if they regulated or prohibited sale of over the counter drugs for those under age 18, as a parent I would want to know exactly what my daughter is being sold....heck took much tylenol can cause liver damage, who knows what other negative side effects there are that might get ignored from whatever.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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 butterbean and duwelon and AreaCode707 and bozack who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

<--- updated for accuracy...lol

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
<--- updated for accuracy...lol

Wow, something I didn't think I'd see today, another moron...amazing....

 

[Jaskalas]

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 judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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

You actually think that a zygote is a child?

You really need to pay attention in grade school kid because they explain that shit there.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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

Why?

Slipperly slope fallacy is all you got you stupid POS.

 

[charrison]

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 do feel that OTC drugs should be more controlled than for adults. They are minors after all.

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.

Nice generalization, but church or bible has nothing to do with this.

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.

Much like other vaccines there is small but non zero chance of death. It is about 1 in 5 million for HPV. You will learn this if you ever have kids and have sign off saying you understand this risk.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

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 judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

It's not forcing a company to sell it to minors. It is forcing the FDA to re-evaluate its decision and listen to the scientists who said it was okay to sell to 17 year olds instead of going with the politically motivated decision of setting it at 18+ for no prescription. The FDA was not established to make decisions based on politics. It was established to allow and not allow various goods based on the science behind them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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

You actually think that a zygote is a child?

You really need to pay attention in grade school kid because they explain that shit there.

And do you think that zygote is anything other than human life(you should have learned that in science class)? That zygote is not a fully developed child, but it does not escape moral issues either.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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.

What if they were, should they be able to force their daughter to have the child?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

What if they were, should they be able to force their daughter to have the child?

Should they be completely removed from any decision made by their minor child?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

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 judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

It's not forcing a company to sell it to minors. It is forcing the FDA to re-evaluate its decision and listen to the scientists who said it was okay to sell to 17 year olds instead of going with the politically motivated decision of setting it at 18+ for no prescription. The FDA was not established to make decisions based on politics. It was established to allow and not allow various goods based on the science behind them.

I see the picture now. His authority is over the FDA, whose authority is over all food and drugs. So, a judge can single handedly control those products. That is a fairly impressive reach beyond the law.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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?

Regular Birth Control pills are MUCH worse, not to mention Tylenol which kills more people every year than RU486 ever did and that's not even used anymore since it was deemed to dangerous.

Truth is that regular progesteron pills pretty much do the same thing, they will cause a miscarriage over time if the girl doesn't know she's pregnant.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

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 judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

It's not forcing a company to sell it to minors. It is forcing the FDA to re-evaluate its decision and listen to the scientists who said it was okay to sell to 17 year olds instead of going with the politically motivated decision of setting it at 18+ for no prescription. The FDA was not established to make decisions based on politics. It was established to allow and not allow various goods based on the science behind them.

I see the picture now. His authority is over the FDA, whose authority is over all food and drugs. So, a judge can single handedly control those products. That is a fairly impressive reach beyond the law.

No.

The judge is saying that the FDA's decision was arbitrary and is ordering them to review it.

Edit:
Specifically:

The judge ruled that the agency had improperly bowed to political pressure from the Bush administration in 2006 when it set 18 as the age limit.

The FDA's scientific advisory board said allowing 17y.o.s access to the morning after pill would not be a problem. The FDA ignored them and bowed to political pressure, which is not what they should have done (and thus incorrect and able to be overturned by a judge).

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

What if they were, should they be able to force their daughter to have the child?

Should they be completely removed from any decision made by their minor child?

Is it their body or hers? Do parents have an inevital right to their 17 year old daughters body or not? If they do, why is mutilation of their bodies not allowed?

At age 17 she's not a little girl anymore, i knew my daughter was having sex long before that and made sure she had protection at hand, the problem is with people like you who refuse to understand that they will have sex and then don't want them to take responsibility for their own actions either.

It's fucking retarded.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

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.

Yep, I think that about all OTC drugs. A kid that pops OTC naproxyn all the time on an empty stomach is put at risk of stomach damage, for example, something a high school football player taking meds to reduce inflammation on minor injuries might not know. Some OTC acne medications mess with your hormones and can really screw you up for a period of time, as can birth control meds taken for the sole purpose of regulating your period (removing the morality question). There are plenty of OTC meds that, when mixed with alcohol, become a problem. OTC meds can be used for deliberate overdoses.

OTC doesn't necessarily mean safe; it means safe when taken as directed. Teenagers often lack the ability to accurately project the implications of their actions in the long term future. As a parent, I think it's important that you are at least aware of what your kids are taking and have the opportunity to discuss it with them and help them monitor effects.

Well then the argument is OTC meds should only be sold to legal adults, not Plan B shouldn't be OTC. If you single out Plan B or any other contraception (I thought birth control is prescription only?), it becomes clear what your motives are.

Fair enough. I commented on plan b because that's the only issue at hand here, both in the thread and in the law. If you can't have the whole, take the half that's offered and try for the other half later.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

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 judge on his own has the authority to do such a thing? Isn't he limited to interpreting a law, and so what law possibly applies to forcing companies to sell this to minors?

It's not forcing a company to sell it to minors. It is forcing the FDA to re-evaluate its decision and listen to the scientists who said it was okay to sell to 17 year olds instead of going with the politically motivated decision of setting it at 18+ for no prescription. The FDA was not established to make decisions based on politics. It was established to allow and not allow various goods based on the science behind them.

I see the picture now. His authority is over the FDA, whose authority is over all food and drugs. So, a judge can single handedly control those products. That is a fairly impressive reach beyond the law.

Sometimes it might be easier to talk to someone outside of the family, especially if they are as fucked up in the head as you seem to be.

Should a doctor or the parents make the choices for beneficial medical treatment for a patient?

For some reason Americans seem to think that they own their children as property, perhaps it has to do with their fetish for absolutism a la Stalin?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

Yeah, why not 3?

:roll:

A line needs to be drawn, but why 18?

The whole point is the decision wasn't based on science. It was based on politics. The scientific advisory board of the FDA said it would be fine to allow 17yo.s to access the morning after pill. Denying them prescription-less access was a political decision.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 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 butterbean and duwelon and AreaCode707 and bozack who probably protests the existance of their own penises.

<--- updated for accuracy...lol

I very much protest the existence of my own penis! Particularly because I really, honestly and truly do not have one!

<---XX, not XY

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

Medical supervision would imply prescription.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

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.

What if they were, should they be able to force their daughter to have the child?

Should they be completely removed from any decision made by their minor child?

Is it their body or hers? Do parents have an inevital right to their 17 year old daughters body or not? If they do, why is mutilation of their bodies not allowed?

At age 17 she's not a little girl anymore, i knew my daughter was having sex long before that and made sure she had protection at hand, the problem is with people like you who refuse to understand that they will have sex and then don't want them to take responsibility for their own actions either.

It's fucking retarded.

People like me? More gross generalizations. My daughter is not that age, but she will not be kept in the dark either. My daughter will be raised to be informed and responsible. I dont think it is an unreasonable to keep this out of the hands of minors, as parent and their children need to discuss such issues. Lets pace it, plam b should not be a primary method of birth control.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why stop at 17? Why not 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? I don't know where the line is exactly but there IS a line.

15 is a pretty good limit but even younger children than that should be able to make safe choices under doctors supervision, of course, that would be rape and the doctor would be legally obliged to report it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your retarded thoughts, just keep spewing your idiocy.