Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription — but only with proof they’re 18 or older, federal health officials decided Thursday. The Food and Drug Administration ruling culminated a contentious three-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.
Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor’s note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the FDA told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The compromise decision is a partial victory for women’s advocacy and medical groups which say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation’s 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies. Opponents have argued that wider access could increase promiscuity.
The long delay had ensnared President Bush’s nominee to head the FDA. On Thursday, two senators said they would lift their blockade, making confirmation of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as FDA’s commissioner likely next month.
And how do you feel about that, Lorie?
It’s about damned time.
Some facts about Plan B (Warning: testy and sciency)
Shit, I thought the “morning after pill” was Alka Seltzer.
Ten years from now the maker of the drug and the government will be sued by thousands of idiots that insisted on taking a ‘won’t be no baby’ not completely tested pill, or there will be hundreds of thousands of people with massive medical bill who wonder what happened. Remember how many inadequately tested drugs have came before this and the trials are still going on.
The old saying, “An awkward morning beats a boring evening” is given new meaning.
I support the decision.
Science over morality – it’s something we’ve striven for many times in this country.
Having said that, I’m equally happy that minors are not permitted to do this on their own. The same should be in place for abortions.
I was going to ask “What about men under 18?”, but I read the article and it says it applies to men as well. All things considered, half the customers should be men, no?
Sarcastically; I wonder if guys will buy a few condomns and a morning after pill at the same time? Mebbe an enterprising company could create a “party pack” that includes them both – perhaps with some alchohol too…. (I’m sure I’ll get slammed for that.)
Medically, I know that the MAP does have some horrible after effects. Vomiting, cramping, headaches, other stuff. Not pleasant.
Day by day is quite on topic today with this, no?
(http://daybydaycartoon.com/)
Conservatives will probably whine about this, but not Ol’ BC. Always remember, legislating morality, at any level, always seem to flop. Period. From prohibition to abortions. Doesn’t work. Never has. We need LESS government in our lives, not more.
Ol’ BC,
I don’t think you’ve really thought through that whole ‘legislating morality’ idea.
ALL laws ‘legislate morality’ in one form or another. Murder is illegal. That’s legislated morality. Disobeying the speed limit is illegal. Keep your laws off my accelerator! Sex with minors is illegal. Legislating morality.
I could go on and on, but if you don’t get it by now, you never will.
The problem, I think, is that people derive their definitions of moral and ethical behavior from different sources. It’s easy for people of any creed or lack therof to agree that murder is wrong, or that driving with excessive speed is reckeless and therefore wrong.
However you start getting problems when you get into subjects like this one.
“Opponents have argued that wider access could increase promiscuity.”
So what? This is what Ol’BC is talking about when he says “legistlating morality”. The “opponents” have nothing to point to other than “our book says so”, and that just doesn’t fly with everyone else. While I can’t say I’m a fan of promiscuity, you’re going to have to come up with better justifications to interfere with people’s lives.
The Nanny Government crowd and elements of the religious right seem to have two major elements in common; they want the power to tell other people how to live their lives, and they never seem to quit.
While I agree with you guys that not only are our laws based on morality, but that legislating morality is bad, the intersection of the two seemingly opposing opinions is that it’s alright to legislate morality when the action would violate someone else’s rights. Murder, obviously, violates another person’s rights. Speeding can lead to death/injury of an innocent person, albeit that’s a bad justification for speed limits, IMO.
Abortion is a slippery slope; I think the debate *should* be framed as weighing the rights of the child vs. the rights of the parent. At what age does a person develop rights? Our laws, to my knowledge, draw no line for age restriction on inalienable rights. They should; while people would still be ticked off one way or the other, at least we’d have a concrete definition of when our legal system considers life to have started. There’s no reason a person should be able to be tried for killing two people if they murder a pregant woman, but a woman can have an abortion. Makes no sense.
–trb
Plan A: Have careless, irresponsible, unprotected sex and hope that you’ll beat the overwhelming odds and not create a baby (or catch a deadly disase).
Plan B: Kill the baby.
ALL laws ‘legislate morality’ in one form or another. Murder is illegal. That’s legislated morality. Disobeying the speed limit is illegal. Keep your laws off my accelerator! Sex with minors is illegal. Legislating morality.
Actually, I believe basis for our laws is protecting the rights of the individual – the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Murder is obviously depriving someone of their life. Speeding… an issue of morality ? Sex with minor is a matter of being of sufficient age to legally consent… the same reason you can’t join the military at 16 without parental consent.
Sharia Law is based on one groups moral principles. Codifying one’s own view of morality is the antithesis to what this country was founded on – which was the rights of the individual.
– MikeB
MikeB,
And ‘protecting the rights of the individual’ is a MORAL position. Thus, all laws originate from someone’s morality.
Not all societies see murder as a ‘crime’. See countries under sharia law, for example. That it is illegal in the US is legislated morality. Just because you happen to agree with that particular law does not make it any less a case of legislating morality.
Codifying one’s own view of morality is the antithesis to what this country was founded on – which was the rights of the individual.
Umm, MikeB, perhaps you should read some of our founding documents again. Our Founding Fathers were totally codifying their morality.