OPINION & EDITORIAL
Religion interferes with FDA ruling
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Cynthia Martens:
- America maintains unhealthy obsession with body image (February 10, 2006)
- Genocide not limited to Holocaust (January 27, 2006)
- Undergraduate fears of commencement unjustified (February 3, 2006)
- Outbursts in class unacceptable (April 7, 2005)
- Teacher evaluations not always effective (February 17, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Robertson goes off deep end again (January 15, 2006)
- Intelligent design in classrooms indicative of larger trend (October 10, 2005)
- Public schools need open debate on intelligent design (February 23, 2006)
- America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
- Both sides now: Religion takes center place in Milwaukee voucher debate (January 27, 2006)
by Cynthia Martens
Monday, November 21, 2005
Broadcaster Pat Robertson recently issued a fatwa over the citizens of Dover, Penn., who voted out of office school board members who supported intelligent design in the school curriculum. "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said. Hmm … is this about science or religion?
Almost a year ago, I wrote a column expressing the hope that religion would not be an obstacle for those seeking contraception. The FDA has tap-danced around the issue of the morning-after pill's availability for years now, even though it is available without prescription in 41 countries, from Sweden to Sri Lanka.
In December 2003, the FDA's own scientific advisory committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the agency granting swifter access to emergency contraception. Since then, nothing has changed, and last week, the Government Accountability Office issued a report suggesting the FDA reached its 2003 decision prior to hearing the advisory committee's recommendations.
In August, Susan Wood, the FDA's top women's health official, resigned in protest over the agency's dawdling over Plan B, and last month, Dr. Frank Davidoff, editor emeritus of the Annals of Internal Medicine and a consultant to the FDA's advisory panel, also resigned. Both claimed the agency was catering to religion rather than science.
It's amazing that contraception is so controversial in 2005. You need look no further than this campus to find a bill entitled the UW Birth Control Ban (AB 343), which could prohibit University of Wisconsin campuses from prescribing, dispensing and advertising all forms of emergency contraceptives. Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced the bill based on the insulting claim that dispensing emergency contraceptives increases promiscuity.
Similarly, members of Concerned Women for America suggest that if Plan B were available without prescription, women would just "pop a pill in the morning" and lose the ability to turn down sex.
Then should condoms be prescription-only as well? Should all contraceptives? If contraceptives encourage such immoral behavior, why are they legal? I called the CWFA headquarters with a few questions, which a representative requested I submit in writing, but once my questions were submitted, they went unanswered.
The implication that the absence of contraceptives is all that keeps students from humping each other like sex-crazed rabbits is extremely offensive — not to mention inaccurate. The reality is that many (though certainly not all) young adults choose to be sexually active. Shouldn't the FDA and this public university help them to be safe and responsible?
Dr. Scott Spear, director of clinical services at UW's University Health Services, thinks so. Asked if access to contraception increased promiscuity, Spear said: "That's not how people make decisions. The evidence just isn't there to support those kinds of contentions."
Spear also said that students do not rely on emergency contraception as their regular form of birth control. "I think they understand that it's to be used episodically. But for some women, it can be an important backup," he said. "The vast majority of the time, we don't find people are repeat users." Spear added that frequently women came in for emergency contraception when another form of contraception had failed.
In France, girls and women of all ages have had access to emergency contraception since 2002, and each year, 10,000 to 15,000 boxes are delivered to French high schools, with no reported medical crises and fewer teen abortions. Why are the Concerned Women for America so unconcerned with foreign experience?
Emergency-contraceptive pills, taken within a limited time frame of 72 hours after sex, interfere with ovulation and fertilization or prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, should there be one. The FDA and the medical establishment do not consider a woman pregnant until implantation occurs; if a woman takes a pregnancy test and implantation has not occurred, the test will be negative. Thus, Plan B is not abortive, but contraceptive.
Even if you did consider preventing implantation abortive, this would be equivalent to a pre-first-trimester abortion, and first-trimester abortions are legal. It's therefore illogical to ban the morning-after pill on these grounds.
Supporting the availability of emergency contraception is not an extremist liberal position — it's one many Republicans share. By turning the issue into a battle between liberals and conservatives, religious leaders have kept the FDA from making a sound medical decision.
Cynthia Martens (cmartens@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in Italian and European studies.
Anonymous (November 21, 2005 @ 1:23pm):
"Almost a year ago, I wrote a column expressing the hope that religion would not be an obstacle for those seeking contraception." Oh yes, we remember that one. That's the column where you got about 100 feedback posts, most of them pointing out the complete ignorance in what you wrote.
This time at least you're not implying that medical professionals who go to school for 6 years to earn a PharmD degree do so only to learn how to fill bottles. But that's about the only thing positive I can come up with.
For starters, the inherent contradictions in the message of this column is particularly striking. On the one hand, Cynthia tries to assure us that emergency contraception is used infrequently and that this is a good thing. On the other hand, she points out that 10,000 to 15,000 boxes are delivered to French high schools and that this frequent use is a good thing. Which is it Cynthia?
And then Cynthia does a disco dance around the issue of abortion. She states, "...if a woman takes a pregnancy test and implantation has not occurred, the test will be negative...Thus, Plan B is not abortive." But in this line of reasoning, Cynthia (most likely intentionally) answers a different question. In determining whether an abortion occurs, the question that needs to be answered is whether or not a life is created. As Cynthia herself writes, as she references a fertilized egg, the answer in some cases is "yes". Perhaps that's why she feels to need to have a backup response, i.e. that first-trimester abortion is legal.
Just because abortion is legal does not mean it should be. But beyond that, the legality of any medical procedures or drugs does not determine which drugs are available without a prescription. Corrective lenses are legal (and even required by OSHA in some workplaces), but that does not mean that they do not require a prescription. Using Cynthia's logic, since many young adults require corrective lenses, shouldn't the FDA and this public university help them to obtain them without the hindrance of a prescription-- just like, say, cough drops? Apparently Cynthia thinks anyone ought to be able to walk into Walgreen's and buy Plan B contraception just like they do cough drops.
Finally, Cynthia, stop lecturing us on policy based on what France does. We're supposed to make policy decisions to model a country that can't even prevent massive rioting throughout their own cities?? Good grief!!
Anonymous (November 21, 2005 @ 8:23pm):
Where will the cannon foder come from if birth control is allowed?
Anonymous (November 22, 2005 @ 2:56am):
You must be a really bitter pharmacist. Get a life. This is a strong column- the fact that it got a rise out of you only proves this.
France is a big country. The fact that 10 to 15 thousand boxes of EC are delivered to French high schools does not contradict the idea that women do not rely on EC as a regular form of birth control. It just means it's available.
You assume that a non-implanted zygote is a life- that's a big assumption, and begs the question.
Also: contact lenses? Are you serious? Dan LeMahieu has asserted that making EC available leads students to be more promiscuous. Following this logic, one could assume that all contraceptives SHOULD be banned. The religious right just doesn't want to assert that it's against contraception in general and prefers to hide behind ANOYNYMOUS...
