OPINION & EDITORIAL
Lautenschlager right to pursue FDA suit
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Morning after pill must remain prescription-based (March 23, 2006)
- Falk It! (September 12, 2006)
- Potential pitfalls abound for Plan B (November 29, 2006)
- FDA makes right choice for women (September 4, 2006)
- Just what the doctor ordered (January 25, 2005)
by Emily Friedman
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
It seems as if a week cannot go by without birth control or abortion appearing in the headlines. This week is no different.
Late last week The Badger Herald reported on Gov. Jim Doyle's approval of Attorney General Peg Lautenschalager's request to file suit against the Food and Drug Administration, following its delay in approving the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B for over-the-counter sale.
What would we do without our governor?
Ms. Lautenschalager believes that without the lawsuit the FDA's wrongdoing would go unquestioned and inevitably leave many women without adequate means to deal with the result of sexual assault, rape and unwanted pregnancies.
This lawsuit is imperative: the FDA must realize that postponing its decision on Plan B based solely on political reasons is not right, and it should learn to stick with scientific standards and stop trying to play politics.
According to Ms. Lautenschalager, Wisconsin's Department of Justice cites several reasons that the FDA should be held responsible for stalling Plan B. In a news release from the Department of Justice, Ms. Lautenschalager says, "The negative effects of withholding approval of this drug over political — not scientific or other legitimately accepted grounds — are far reaching, hurting not only victims of rape who might be in need of emergency contraception, but the greater community health, the economy and the fundamental right to justice."
It is not hard to question the FDA's actions when a veteran member of its staff has spoken out against it. In a New York Times article entitled "Report Details FDA Rejection of Next-Day Pill," Dr. Susan F. Wood, former director of the FDA's office of women's health, said she is certain the FDA's actions regarding Plan B have everything to do with the underlying issue of abortion, and that science and research is being pushed aside.
For the sake of understanding, let's backtrack. Plan B, commonly known as the morning-after-pill, has been available by prescription since 1999. The company that makes Plan B, Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., requested the FDA's approval to sell the drug over-the-counter back in 2003. Almost three years later, Plan B is still unavailable without prescription and thus completely unavailable to those who either do not have health insurance or can't afford a visit to a doctor to obtain a prescription.
Let us now consider a hypothetical situation — one that has certainly been a reality for far too many women. After being raped, a woman either does not want to report the rape (which is not uncommon), or simply cannot afford a doctor's visit to get a prescription for Plan B. Weeks later, the woman realizes she is pregnant, and then comes the never-ending struggle over abortion. It is clear that the FDA's unwillingness to approve Plan B as an over-the-counter drug is laced with fierce political undertones centering on abortion.
So as the holiday season approaches, let us thank both Ms. Lautenschalager and Gov. Doyle for their commitment to both the state of Wisconsin and, more specifically, the women of Wisconsin. If the FDA can get away with this then what's next? The Justice Department banning civil unions? Oh, wait …
Emily Friedman (ecfriedman@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
Anonymous (December 13, 2005 @ 11:29am):
GREAT article Emily. It raises a lot of important debates and questions. I think that informing people about the unfair politicizing of this issue is crucial to ensuring justice is done. You have great insight into the situation and I feel much more informed on the issue than I did before reading your piece. Keep up the good work :)
