NEWS
Plab B lawsuit goes forward against FDA
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Courtney Johnson:
- Construction pops up on State Street this spring (November 6, 2007)
- Woods ahead in fundraising race (March 28, 2007)
- E-mail sparks privacy concern (October 9, 2007)
- Big Ten Network reaches deal with UW housing (August 31, 2007)
- City agency to run Halloween entertainment (May 10, 2007)
Related Stories:
- AG asks for lawsuit over Plan B (December 2, 2005)
- Doyle gives go-ahead for FDA lawsuit (December 9, 2005)
- Plan B debate takes stage at forum (March 24, 2006)
- Morning-after pill to be available without prescription (September 4, 2006)
- New bill to aid assault victims (March 7, 2007)
by Courtney Johnson
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager announced at a press conference last week her intent to involve Wisconsin in a current lawsuit against the federal Food and Drug Administration.
The action, filed on March 15, states that the FDA's delay in approving emergency contraception reflects the administration's failure to respond to the urgent medical needs of women.
The morning after pill, or Plan B, has been available as a prescription since 1999. The FDA has taken over two years to issue a final decision on whether to make Plan B available to women over the counter.
"This lawsuit says that politics should not be allowed to trump science, and that women's health is a priority for the state of Wisconsin," Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice Wisconsin, said in a release.
Additionally, Plan B is more effective the sooner it is taken. Ideally, it should be taken in the first 12-24 hours after intercourse, but can be effective within the first 120 hours after as well.
According to Lautenschlager spokesperson Kelly Kennedy, due to the relatively short time period in which the pill is effective "it makes sense for it to be over-the-counter."
"The FDA's medical experts and scientists have all said that [Plan B] is safe," Kennedy added.
In a 2003 joint hearing of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs and Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committees, experts voted to recommend Plan B be made over-the-counter.
"Expert panels overwhelmingly recommended that [Plan B] be given over-the-counter status," Roys said in a phone interview. "Plan B is simply a high dose of birth control pill, and it cannot even harm an existing pregnancy."
Roys added that Plan B would actually help an established pregnancy, as women are given progesterone — the active ingredient in Plan B — to prevent miscarriage.
But Pro-Life Wisconsin disagrees.
Marc Tuttle, communications director for the organization, said the use of emergency contraception is just another unnecessary medical procedure for healthy women.
Tuttle also condemned Lautenschlager's motives, saying the decision to join this lawsuit is part of "her own ideological crusade."
Additionally, pro-choice groups have cited the financial effects of allowing emergency contraception to be available over the counter.
"[O]ne of the reasons that the state is suing is that this is a tremendous cost to taxpayers who have to bear the burdens of unplanned pregnancies," Roys said. "They cost millions of dollars a year to state taxpayers."
Roys added that prevention is a far less expensive option.
But Pro-Life Wisconsin has been quick to respond.
"[That Lautenschlager] doesn't feel it should be our state's burden to take care of these children is an abomination," Tuttle said.
He added this lawsuit sends a negative message to women who have unplanned pregnancies, characterizing them and their children as a burden.
Pro-choice groups, however, view this lawsuit as especially negative for women who are victims of rape or incest.
"Victims will be further traumatized," Roys said.
She added the embarrassment of going to one's physician for the prescription and driving to various pharmacies to find someone who carries it and will sell it adds further insult to injury.
"Also, pregnancy is a serious medical condition," Roys added. "Pregnancy is not like sneezing — it is a very big deal, and it takes an extremely large toll on a woman's body."
If Wisconsin is allowed to intervene it will be named as a plaintiff in the suit, which has been underway in N.Y. since January 2005. The lawsuit was originally filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Anonymous (March 21, 2006 @ 10:18pm):
separation of church and state anyone? if a woman controling her health, body, and family planning is so offensie, then look at something else. Kshutthefup.kthnx. I love that 80% of pro-life activists are men.... connection here. a woman's body is not a man's property. women are not an extension of a man! BAH!
