BCT Editorial – 8/30/06

This page was last updated on August 30, 2006.

A good first step; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 30, 2006.

This critique is not intended to argue for or against the FDA’s Plan B action. I’m not well enough versed on the subject to make any calls. My comments below are meant solely to show inconsistencies in how Times editorials treats friend and foe.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Use of morning-after pill is an individual’s decision, not the government’s

“The FDA’s too-long-delayed approval of the sale of a morning-after pill without a prescription shows how the Bush administration blurs the distinction between public policy and personal morality.

“On Thursday, the Federal Drug Administration ruled that women 18 years and older would be able to buy the pills, which reduce the risk of pregnancy by 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

“Women will need to show pharmacists, who will dispense the pills, proof of age, while girls 17 and younger will need a doctor’s prescription.

“In a memo, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, whose nomination as FDA commissioner has been stalled in the Senate because of the administration’s politicization of this issue, wrote that sales to minors was still controlled because there isn’t enough scientific evidence that young teens can safely use the so-called Plan B pills without a doctor’s supervision.

“However, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., the manufacturer, and the FDA’s scientists don’t have any doubts about the pill’s safety, and have not for years.”

[RWC] We can implicitly trust the manufacturer of Plan B, but oil companies cannot be trusted.

“The manufacturer’s position is a given, but the findings of the FDA’s own people are especially revealing about the cater-to-the-base approach this administration has taken. The Associated Press reports that in 2003, the agency’s independent scientific advisers overwhelmingly backed nonprescription sales for all ages, and FDA staff scientists agreed.

“However, higher-ranking officials, who more often than not are political appointees or politically sensitive mandarins, rejected that decision, citing concern about young teens’ use of the pills without a doctor’s oversight.

“Barr reapplied, asking that women 16 and older be allowed to buy the pills without a prescription, The AP reported. Then, last August, the FDA postponed a final decision indefinitely, saying the agency needed to determine how to enforce those age restrictions.

“Suddenly, it was back on the approval agenda, moving from banned to available status within a matter of weeks.

“Like stem-cell research, the morning-after pill must be seen in context of the debate over abortion, much of which centers around defining when life starts. (The AP reported that women’s advocacy and medical groups contend eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation’s 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies. If that is so, the number of abortions in the United States would be reduced significantly.)”

[RWC] It’s worth noting the editorial doesn’t count embryos destroyed by taking Plan B to be abortions. You see, Plan B will both stop conception before it happens and terminate the pregnancy if conception has already occurred.

“But there’s another context, as well. Is using the morning-after pill a moral or a health/safety issue? Obviously, the government has every right to address health and safety concerns, as it did when the agency’s independent scientific advisers and staff scientists backed nonprescription sales for all ages.”

[RWC] Isn’t it a “health and safety concern” to the possible embryo?

“However, using the morning-after pill is a moral decision, and that is best left up to the individual.

“What took place last week was a step away from government regulation of a personal moral decision regarding the use of a safe medication.

“It’s not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.”

[RWC] Note the difference in how the Times treats Plan B and how it treats smoking.

In the case of Plan B, taking the drug can terminate a defenseless human life and the drug gets the full support of the Times. Indeed, the Times believes the drug should be available to everyone regardless of age, not just adults.

Let’s look at the Times war on smoking. The Times has treated us to nine editorials in the last 17 months – five editorials within the last three months – lobbying for government to take away the right of property owners to decide if they will permit smoking on their own property.

Let’s sum it up. If you can’t defend yourself, the Times believes you need no protection. If you can choose whether or not to expose yourself to tobacco smoke, the Times believes the decision must be forced upon you.

Yeah, that makes sense – not.