Judge Orders F.D.A. To Make Plan B Available To 17-Year-Olds
Great news, 17-year-olds! A federal judge has ruled that you can now avoid accidental babies by partaking in the emergency contraceptive wonder that is Plan B. Back in 2006, the Food and Drug Administration limited the contraceptive to women 18 and over, and ordered pharmacists to hide the drug behind their counters away from other common contraceptives. Judge Edward Korman ruled this week that the agency's decision was based on politics not science, and that it constituted an unacceptable public health buzzkill.
Such "political considerations, delays and implausible justifications" showed that the F.D.A. had acted without good faith or reasoned decision making, Judge Korman wrote.
Susan F. Wood, a former F.D.A. director of women's health who resigned in 2005 to protest the handling of Plan B, said Monday that the judge's decision to send the drug back for reconsideration signaled hope of the agency's ability to act independently under a new administration.
There is a new chance to "restore the scientific integrity of the F.D.A.," said Ms. Wood, now a professor of public health at George Washington University.
The FDA, which said it was "reviewing the ruling," has 30 days to comply with the judge's order.
Contraception Pill Strictures Are Eased by a Judge [The New York Times]
PREVIOUSLY: FDA Says Plan B Causes Teen Sex Cults
Post a comment
Comments:
Finally. One step at a time. Eventually maybe this will lead to over the counter hormonal contraceptives as well. I never understood the arguments against these things...OTC Plan B is easily $40 at my local pharmacy and can you find 17-18 year olds who'd pay $40 often? It makes a hell of a lot more sense to learn how to have safer and pregnancy-free sex (and abstinence, if one *chooses* to do so fully aware instead of the nonsensical abstinence-only crazy going around right now) with condoms and birth control pills than it does to have unsafe sex and rely on expensive Plan B.
Anyway, nitpick: it's not women 18+, it's anyone 18+: the boyfriend, the parents, whomever.
@Gorphlog: People start having sex (and babies and abortions) by around 14 - 15 years old in some cases. Whether it is "legal" or not, it is happening. I would imagine 17-year-olds make mistakes and have regrets occasionally, and Plan B might just save them from grief. And babies. And abortions.
@Gorphlog: I know most people under the age of 18 NEVER have sex because it is illegal, just as most teenagers don't drink either, but for the tiny, tiny minority that do, perhaps this would be beneficial?
@Gorphlog: "It is like letting a 17 year old buy alcohol. They can buy it but not use it."
No, it's more like refusing to treat a car crash victim's mortal injuries because they ran a Stop sign.
Because, as we all know, teenagers are famous for their ability to make good decisions on the spur of the moment, especially when faced with a temptation like sex. And who wouldn't agree that the penalty for a moment of experimentation should be 20 years of child-rearing? They certainly shouldn't be allowed to take remedial steps the following day when they recognize the risk they've taken.
Here's a reality check: Some teenagers are going to have sex. Period. Making sex more scary and dangerous is not a solution. It's just a way of creating scared and hurt teenagers while pretending to protect them.
@Gorphlog: 17 year old could buy alcohol, what kind of idiot state are you from where this information of your general understanding of this to be true, sex is a impulse not something with pure understanding of whats going to happen, and things does get blurred when hormones are in effect at a age where reason and thought are not always used.
@theczardictates: I think having a bady isn't the same as a car crash.
Where you come down on this probably depends on if you believe life starts at conception or birth. Of course it is before birth because babies live well before the 9 month due date when born early. But it is a debate when that is (this is all Roe v. Wade issues etc.).
Also, I am not sure Consumerist calling being pregnant having "accidental babies" is very accurate. At 17 most people know right from wrong and having unprotected sex produces babies. I'll probably hear that the protection broke. Ugh. That is a tired argument. Most likely they just had unprotected sex without thinking at that moment about the long term implications of their actions. That isn't an accident.
@Gorphlog: Well, you could stick your head in the sand as you apparently prefer to do, or you could deal with reality like an adult.
Your solution is to say, "teenagers under 18 shouldn't be having sex, so they shouldn't get contraception either".
The rational adult solution is to say, "even though teenagers probably shouldn't be having sex, we have to face the fact that they WILL, as they've been doing for as long as there's been a human race. Therefore we make contraception available to them so that babies don't end up being raised by parents mentally and/or financially incapable of taking care of them."
The most common ago of consent is 16 among all 50 states. It's usually still legal to have sex with someone under the age of consent is you too are under a certain ago.
great, now we're going to see under age kids having a bunch of deformed babies because they are going to try to get rid of a 2 month old pregnancy. some kids under 18 are incapable of responsible thought, will not follow the instructions on the box, will be in denial and will try anything to get rid of a pregnancy.
pharmacies withhold drugs, that's what they do, eg, cold medications, prescription drugs, narcotics, etc. this is done to protect the public. how did pharmacies all of a sudden become a political issue?
voting rights at the age of 18, legal drinking and gambling at 21 in the US were created certainly not because of politics.
@taney71: Plan b is not the abortion pill, it is a larger does of standard birth control pills that prevents ovulation.
Also, condoms do break it happened to me once and while it may be a "tired argument" to you it was a serious matter to me and I am greatful that I had access to Plan B
@taney71: also, I wouldn't be so sure that everyone knows how to prevent pregnancy considering the woeful abstinence-only sex education kids have been getting. I've known plenty of people who consider withdrawl, douching after sex, having sex while on their period etc to be reliable birth control
@taney71: Except adults in their mid 30s and 40s have "Accidental" babies. Perhaps the protection broke or was defective? Perhaps the couple fell into the 0.02% where condoms are not effective?
My question is, why stop at 17? what about 16, or 15?
@Yossarian: As compared to unelected bureaucrats at the FDA? Because I can't tell if that's supposed to be sarcastic or not.
@Gorphlog: actually, the age of consent is 16 in 31 states, and 17 in another 7 states. I'm pretty sure 12 states @ 18 isn't 'most.' As far as the illegality of sex between those below the age of consent, it also varies. Read up on your statutes.
@RedSonSuperDave: As compared with those who have the legitimate authority to promulgate the rules.
The FDA can be altered indirectly through elections. Federal judges are beyond reach.
@RedSonSuperDave: I can't tell if there was sarcasm there or not, but it is the role of judges to provide checks and balances in the government. I'm guessing that this judge determined that the old FDA ruling did not jive with the peoples' freedom to pursue happiness and generally be free...
@Gorphlog: Wait...what?
It's illegal for kids under 18 to have sex?
Boy if that's true I think I see an area ripe for deregulation.
@taney71: Condoms break. No contraceptive methods besides abstinence and exclusively gay sex are 100% effective with perfect (as opposed to average) use. And even if they did have unprotected sex, it's still not a reason to deny them access to OTHER contraceptive methods such as Plan B.
@Rachacha: ... because you're very quickly going to run into a very politically-displeasing slippery slope - not to mention the different statutory rape laws from state to state.
actually depending on where you believe conception begins determines if you view the plan b as a possible abortion pill. plan b delivers a massive dose of hormones which is all well and good but it does not prevent an egg from being fertilized. it will prevent the egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. so if you don't consider it life from conception it is a fabulous birth control product. i personally would never take it but that's just me
@Yossarian: In this case the FDA decided that it was safe for 17 and up, but doe to political meddling they changed the labeling before it went to market.
The ruling basically said that the FDA does not have the authority to change the label for political, rather than health and saftey, goals.
@Yossarian: How is this legislating? The Judge is ordering the FDA to do its job, which is approve/disapprove medications on a SCIENTIFIC basis. Instead the FDA based its approval of Plan B on a political agenda.
@RedSonSuperDave: this has to be one of the most logical, well written & concise arguments i've read on this topic.
@Yossarian: @Yossarian: A bit OT, but needs to be said: "Activist Judges" made it so that I don't have to drink from a separate drinking fountain. "Legislators in robes" ensured that I can marry who I want and have that marriage recognized in all 50 states. So I, for one, don't have a problem with the checks and balances of our government system.
@theczardictates: The only who ones who get pregnant are dirty sluts. They should stay pregnant as punishment!
@MrEvil:
It's legislating because the Court didn't just tell them to do their jobs, it told them to do their jobs and that anything but X result is unacceptable. So in essence, the Judge is saying "Go back and conclude that it's OK to sell it to 17 year olds". In my opinion it's borderline legislating from the bench. GIven that there is evidence that the FDA already concluded that it was safe for 17 year olds, but changed their mind because of political pressure, one could argue that the Judge is just telling them to go back and adopt the initial decision, I do get a bad taste i my mouth when a Judge tells a quasi-legislative body what kind of ruling to actually make. I think it's more appropriate to just say "This regulation doesn't comport with Administrative procedure, try again" and give some non-binding guidance. Making an explicit ruling that only X result is acceptable crosses the line.
Is it a tired argument? I'm sorry do you have a pregnant daughter? Did you face a pregnancy when you were 16? Then I guess you don't know anything about this do you. My guess is that you have done plenty of things in your life that were stupid and ill-advised, and i am sure that on more than one of those occasions, somebody cut you some slack. Maybe they helped you with the rent, maybe they took your car keys from you that night in the bar you were drunk and hitting on that drag queen. The point is sir, none of us are perfect, least of all you.
I have a daughter, and while I would like to think that she is smart enough to not do something stupid, stupid is a part of the human condition. I assure you if she came to me and told me she might be pregnant, I am going to care more about her future than some high moral ideal that I didn't adhere to growing up (and neither did you) and not let her get the pill. The welfare of live people trumps potential people.
@edwardso:
THis is not correct, Ovulation occurs some time before (a day or two) penetration and ejaculation, and is compeltely independent of it. So at time of coitus, the egg is already hanging out somewhere near the ovary and slowly meandering towards the fallopian tubes. Fertilization most often occurs in the fallopian tube, the egg continues to drift into the uterus and then may (or may not) implant on the wall and begin to gestate.
This pill prevents implantation of the fertilized egg. Still, not an abortion in a box, but a little different than you thought.
@Gorphlog: Wow. I think your post is a direct result of too much:
Girls Gone Wild + Evangelical Programming = It's illegal to touch girls and letting them do anything is as bad as the Holocaust!
Why GGW? Because of the "I'm finally 18" garbage. That's when MEDIA of them is no longer illegal. It's not illegal for them to have SEX, just illegal to PHOTOGRAPH them while they are doing it.
And I think the Evangelical programming needs no explanation.
@sponica: ... you think buying Sudafed is more difficult than getting Plan B? REALLY?. Do you need a prescription for Sudafed? Do pharmacists deny to sell you Sudafed because it's against their religion?
From Planned Parenthood:
Emergency contraception is made of the same hormones found in birth control pills. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of the body work.
The hormones in the morning after pill work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs - ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the morning after pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.
Some people say that the morning after pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.
You might have also heard that the morning after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.
Plan B is a brand of hormone pills specially packaged as emergency contraception. Plan B contains the hormone progestin.
Certain brands of birth control pills may also be used as backup birth control. Our chart can show you how. Usually, birth control pills with two hormones - progestin and estrogen - are the ones used for EC.
/a>:
@Mike_Hawk: You're completely right. I would add, however, that just because sperm and egg come together, it does not mean that they will implant themselves into the uterine wall, thus beginning to form into a fetus. There a multitude of reasons that this doesn't happen without Plan B -- making Plan B all the more precautionary.
It's amazing what they don't teach women in sex ed...or anywhere else that you'd assume. I'm 25 and have looked into trying to conceive a baby. It was in those pregnancy books (How-To Guides in getting pregnant! Not avoiding it!) that I learned how everything actually works when it come to ovulation, how and when I can get pregnant, and the like.
Of course I knew the basics from high school and from "the talk" my mom had with me. But the details I didn't know at 17 - 25 could have meant a little PittsburghJen in this world. And it blows the mind that you only find the details in the books telling you how to overcome them rather than avoid them.
@Tightlines: It seems that many people are ignorant to the fact that teenagers engage in sex, it makes no sense to make something that is as private as sex a public issue, stating that you must be 18 to engage in intercourse. Not to mention that I've never heard of such nonsense, the age of consent in many states is 16. Teenagers, like myself will do as we please based on our morals and beliefs... If a law is passed that we can not engage in such affairs then so be it, it hasn't stopped minors from drinking and it won't stop them from engaging in a private matter like that.
Some people are as ignorant as Sarah Palin here, preach abstinence yet your daughter gets pregnant... It's hilarious.
Actually... it should be more difficult to obtain Sudafed than Plan B. Legally, for Plan B, you show me your ID proving that you are >18 (up and to this point at least), and I hand you the box, take payment and send you on your way if you have no questions/concerns. For pseudoephedrine purchases, I need your full name, address, phone #, DOB and drivers license # all of which must either be documented on paper or in the computer and signed off by a pharmacist before you can have it.
It is also a very small minority of pharmacists who refuse to dispense it on "moral reasons". They are generally despised by the rest of us, as they as practitioners should know how the damn thing works (see edwardso's posts above) and that it's no different than the standard daily BC pill.
@crazylady: I think the idea was that, since every sperm is a precious human being, then wearing tight pants in a Jacuzzi was killing Little Baby Jesus.
Yup, makes perfect sense to me, too.
IT'S NOT CHRITIAN-AH!
Most people are ignorant and can be slapped in the face with fact and information numerous times and still not have a clue. Teens are going to have sex no matter what form of sex education they're taught. Abstinence and the empty threats of eternal damnation are hardly adequate when dealing with raging hormones. That's why teens should know that IF you have sex, you use a condom. If by some 'remote' chance the condom breaks or comes off, you go to the Rx and get the Plan B pill. Simple information. A $40 insurance policy against the unimaginable monetary toll having a baby takes on you and the fact that one less child will be raising a child of their own.
When something goes wrong with my car I take it to a locksmith. When I'm sick I go to the post office and ask for advice. When I need someone to fix the pipes under my sink I call an ambulance. When I want to get new glasses I go to the butcher. And when I want advice on whether or not condoms decrease the spread of HIV and should be used as a contraceptive, I turn to an old man in a funny hat that's never had sex in his life - the pope.






















Yay!