OPINION & EDITORIAL
FDA let partisanship trump science
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Religion interferes with FDA ruling (November 21, 2005)
- Lautenschlager right to pursue FDA suit (December 13, 2005)
- Costly Contraceptives (September 1, 2004)
- Fieldbinder - Abstinence-only education lacking (December 2, 2005)
- Potential pitfalls abound for Plan B (November 29, 2006)
by Bassey Etim
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Once again science is infringing on government's inalienable right to control how we avoid having babies. This comes as Congressional auditors examine the reasons behind the FDA's decision to keep Plan-B contraceptives, or the "morning after" pill from being sold without a prescription.
The FDA has a legal obligation to make decisions based on science rather then politics. Because many Bush administration allies oppose Plan-B as tantamount to abortion, one would think the FDA would take great care in avoiding the appearance of partisan influence.
Well, one thought wrong.
Top FDA officials admittedly overruled their own scientists, who deemed non-prescription sales safe. But this is completely defensible, clearly an example of activist left-wing scientists who refuse to strictly interpret the bible. (I might be looking at the wrong talking point here.)
To be fair, the FDA's statement on the issue shows they have been grappling with a myriad of pertinent issues pertaining to the drug, which our best and brightest bureaucrats could not resolve after months of consideration.
"Can the prescription and over-the-counter version of the same drug be marketed in a single package?"
The statement goes on to hypothesize at great lengths about creating some sort of complex mechanism to verify the age of someone purchasing a drug. Because of these issues and others accidentally shredded by ex-commissioner Mark McClellan, the argument over Plan-B reached its logical conclusion: infinite delay.
That wouldn't do it for the leftist organization known only as the Government Accountability Office. Their investigation found an inordinate amount of involvement from top FDA officials when considering Plan-B. Despite the resignation of Susan Wood, the FDA Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health, over this very issue, the FDA is making a principled stand against other non-partisan arms of the federal government, claiming the GAO audit "mischaracterizes facts."
For example, the decision on Plan-B was supposedly made in May. Now some FDA officials say rejection of Plan-B's over the counter bid was recommended in January. While he denied making a ruling until May, Dr. Steven Galson, the Acting Director for the Center For Drug Evaluation and Research, did tell the GAO that he was 90 percent sure about its rejection before the science was even reviewed. Mischaracterized. After all, if you love science so much, why don't you marry it?
The FDA went even further in another statement, delivering a wincing blow to the independent, non-partisan beast.
"We question the integrity of the investigative process that results in such partial conclusions,"
While the GAO was deemed one of the best places to work in the federal government, the FDA trounces them in the category of most confusing and poorly worded press releases (Runners up in best rejection of an investigation by a government official. Darn Tom Delay).
Behind the Plan-B debate are larger moral issues, making the morning-after pill the newest battleground in the "culture wars." Many conservatives have been pressing the Bush administration to keep the pill behind the pharmacist's desk. The reasons range from the belief that it might cause an abortion depending on what you consider conception, and the popular notion that it will increase teen sexual activity.
In what must be a preemptive attack pending any study linking the morning after pill and rampant teen sex, our state legislature is quickly moving forward on a bill banning University Health services from advertising, prescribing, or dispensing the pill. Finally, the great plague of teen sexuality will be eradicated once and for all! Or perhaps students will just put more faith in a slab of latex .07 millimeters thick. Either way, it is comforting to know that our elected officials and health agencies are looking out for our best interests.
The state legislature should stop playing petty political games with our health care, as that clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.
Bassey Etim (etim@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science.
Joe Kent (November 16, 2005 @ 8:09am):
To bad your mother didn't use the morning after pill on you. Then we won't have to read this garbage.
Yes lets go ahead and make it easier to kill babies.
Anonymous (November 16, 2005 @ 8:19am):
Should the abortion pill be easier to access than Sudafed? You need to show ID just to get your cold medicine from the Pharamacist now.
Of course, ammunition for my rifle is sitting out on the shelves, freely available.
Hmmmmmm
Anonymous (November 16, 2005 @ 5:42pm):
Obviously you don't get it. Without birth control, all teens would spontaneously stop having sex and begin reading their Bibles. It's the only way we can be sure we're taking everyone with us as we try to turn the clock back 400 years when teen sex wasn't a problem.
Anonymous (November 16, 2005 @ 11:44pm):
"To bad your mother didn't use the morning after pill on you. Then we won't have to read this garbage.
Yes lets go ahead and make it easier to kill babies."
Joe Kent, ladies and gentlemen, our homegrown moron!
Anonymous (November 24, 2005 @ 11:25pm):
Joe Blow is definitly missing the point and displaying his ignorance (and insecurities) by blatantly degrading Mr. Etim. To Blow Job Joe: Go on and have your babies!! It's your money that you'll be spending raising them (or paying child support for that matter). If you don't have a legitimate counter-point to Bassey's, then take your own advice, so we don't have to read YOUR garbage.
Anonymous (November 30, 2005 @ 3:35pm):
it makes no sense to slander the author by saying that it's too bad *his* mother didn't use the morning after pill on him.... um, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this a direct endorsment of a product you are saying ought not be used? puzzling... and ignorant and hypocritical to say the least.
-Steph
Anonymous (November 30, 2005 @ 3:36pm):
it makes no sense to slander the author by saying that it's too bad *his* mother didn't use the morning after pill on him.... um, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this a direct endorsment of a product you are purporting ought not be used? puzzling... and ignorant and hypocritical to say the least.
-Steph
