Maybe the Bush administration is looking for a Plan C

As we’ve seen on too many occasions, Friday afternoons are frequently used to release embarrassing information that the Bush gang would like to keep relatively hidden from public view — fewer reporters are working and fewer Americans are paying attention. Alas, this past Friday afternoon was no exception.

After 28 months of growing controversy, the Food and Drug Administration yesterday indefinitely postponed its decision on whether women should be allowed to buy the “morning-after pill” Plan B without a prescription — despite earlier assurances that it would act by Thursday.

The decision to embark instead on a new regulation-writing process was immediately denounced by women’s health advocates and some lawmakers as a stalling tactic to achieve political and ideological ends.

This is absurd. Nearly two years ago, an FDA panel voted 23 to 4 to approve over-the-counter access to this emergency contraception pill. It’s not the more controversial RU-486 you may have heard about; we’re just talking about emergency contraception — nothing more than high-dose birth-control pills — that reduces the chance of pregnancy 75% to 90%, but only if taken within 72 hours of sex. One FDA panel member called it the “safest drug that we have seen brought before us.”

But as is usually the case with this administration, politics has trumped science.

Many social and religious conservatives oppose easier access to emergency contraception and have flooded the White House with their views in recent days. Some oppose the easier access because they believe it will encourage promiscuity among young girls, and others because they believe emergency contraception can be a form of abortion.

The far right has everything backwards.

Plan B’s availability offers a relatively easy way to drastically reduce the number of abortions in the country without undermining women’s legal reproductive rights. And yet, conservatives are against abortion and against taking any steps — emergency contraception, accurate education on sexual health, support for family planning programs — that might make abortions less common, even for women who’ve been assaulted.

The right says Plan B may not be safe, but medical experts here and around the world say otherwise. The right says Plan B is tantamount to abortion, but if a fertilized egg doesn’t get implanted in the uterus, the woman can’t get pregnant. The right says Plan B might promote risky sexual behavior, but peer-reviewed studies published in mainstream medical publications repeatedly found no such link.

Making emergency contraception available without a prescription in Britain did not lead women there to rely on it rather than other birth control methods or to an increase in unprotected sex, a new study has found.

The three-year study of more than 20,000 women found that over-the-counter availability had little effect. About the same percentage of women used the emergency contraceptive before and after it become more easily available in January 2001 — about 8 percent annually.

The researchers concluded that fears that nonprescription emergency contraception would change contraceptive practices were unfounded, as were hopes it would reduce unwanted pregnancies.

And yet, he we are, with Bush’s FDA breaking its word and delaying the decision again. The entire process has been a painfully ridiculous example of ideological foot-dragging, as conservatives search desperately for creative ways to deny reality.

Under federal regulations, the Food and Drug Administration was required to reach a decision on Plan B by January. Nothing happened. Indeed, Barr executives said they had no discussions with the agency after January. Usually when the agency is actively considering an application, there is a constant back-and-forth with the company.

As the months passed, two Democratic senators who support abortion rights, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington, vowed to block any vote on President Bush’s nomination of Dr. Crawford to become agency commissioner unless the F.D.A. made a decision on the pill, for or against. Mr. Bush has long been aligned with abortion opponents.

The senators relented in July after the secretary of health and human services, Michael O. Leavitt, promised that a decision would be made by Sept. 1. On Friday, both senators attributed Dr. Crawford’s latest announcement to political interference.

Dr. Robert Fenichel, a former deputy division director for cardiovascular and renal drugs who left the F.D.A. in 2000, agreed, saying the agency’s decisions on Plan B were being driven by abortion politics.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Dr. Fenichel said.

It’s funny how often we hear that phrase in the context of the Bush gang, isn’t it?

Why is anyone surprised? Control of women’s reproductive rights are a rallying point as well as a way to “punish” for women’s bad behavior. Over on redstate.org, I read this post that was truly appalling:
“Why should a fetus pay for HER mistake”? Excuse me, but when are the theothugs going to punish MEN for these indescretions?

  • Women’s rights, whether reproductive or otherwise, have been long-standing issues for decades and, while it’s nice and lovely and, shall we say, naive to think we’ve progressed beyond the “weaker sex” ideological framework, I dare say we really haven’t.

    Even if we use the Separate Spheres ideology, and concede that men do, in fact, inhabit and control issues of politics and such and that the realm of the domestic — including the rearing of children — belong in the capable hands of women, and *women alone*, we, as a society, should then realise that it is NOT that simple, nor is it a cut-and-dry issue regarding women’s rights to her own body. There is still this mysogynistic overtone hidden within the valiant cause of protecting an unborn zygote, which is what we’re really talking about when dealing with the reproductive issues Plan B seems to bring to light.

    As a Canadian, I cannot even begin to comprehend what scared, lonely, and vulnerable American women must face when dealing with the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy in the midst of the religious right’s condemnation of a drug that would significantly lower abortions and help stem the tide of children having children. Also, as a woman, I surely do not want to be relegated to some arcane idea that my place is simply to procreate, which, again, seems to be one of the issues brought forth by this “controversial” drug.

    Plan B has been available in Canada for quite sometime now, without the need for a prescription. Here is a link to an article that might be of interest:

    http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin3/021107a.asp

    While this article is a bit dated, the information gleaned from this study is still wholly applicable to this situation. And yes, Emergency Contraception is available here through walk-in clinics. Canada: home of Socialism and (mostly) liberal politics. Thank the Lord (praise Jesus!) that I live here.

    Allison

  • Our country must be viewed by the world as being run by a crazy man and half full of crazy people.

  • I’ve been reading the carpetbagger report for a few months now, and have never commented. But this one got to me. I really can’t stand stand the view that a lot of right minded people take that makes them think that a women will suddenly prefer to use this as a form of birth control. Don’t they get that this is exactly what it says it is? It’s emergency contraception. I’ve taken it once. It’s not a pleasant experience. It’s not horrible, by any means, but you immediately get a very heavy period. Not something I’d like to use on a regular basis.

  • I’m afraid I’m unclear. So the Senate confirmed Dr. Crawford on an empty promise? Really, after this as well as Bolton, the Senate ought to revolt, refuse to do anything for the president until he starts appreciating the Senate and its constitutional role.

  • Rian,

    I’m afraid I’m unclear. So the Senate confirmed Dr. Crawford on an empty promise? Really, after this as well as Bolton, the Senate ought to revolt, refuse to do anything for the president until he starts appreciating the Senate and its constitutional role.

    I’m relieved that I’m not the only one who was thinking about this aspect of the post. A promise was made and then broken. What is the repercussion? Shoot, what *are* the repercussions?!

    Having said that, the larger point remains and I fully applaud both VTIdealist and fineartfuldodgers comments. Spot on, both of you.

    And, cowboy? When you are right, you are right.

  • Comments are closed.