Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

When Politics Defeats Science (emergency contraception)


Destino

Recommended Posts

Since my resignation six months ago as assistant commissioner of women's health at the Food and Drug Administration, I have been traveling around the country meeting with men and women, fellow scientists and health care professionals. I have shared my concerns that our federal health agencies seem increasingly unable to operate independently and that this lack of independence compromises their mission of promoting public health and welfare.

At every stop I am reminded that whether it is the environment, energy policy, science education or public health, the American public expects our government to make the best decisions based on the best available evidence.

Yet, at a recent hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, we saw once again that this is not happening. Reps. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) questioned FDA acting commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach about the delay in approving the application to make Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter to women 17 and older. Von Eschenbach responded that the agency was carefully reviewing the thousands of comments received in response to last-minute concerns raised about the feasibility of making the same product available over the counter for most women but keeping it on prescription for young teens. This exchange confirmed my suspicion that, like his predecessor, von Eschenbach is unable or unwilling to let the science and the scientists guide FDA policy and decisions, and that the real answer as to whether the FDA will allow Plan B over the counter for those 17 and older is no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801027.html

As usual please read tha article before commenting (it's short).

If you want to know my opinion on this - this drug should be available to all women that can safely take it over the counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801027.html

As usual please read tha article before commenting (it's short).

If you want to know my opinion on this - this drug should be available to all women that can safely take it over the counter.

I agree. It's amazing that there is even a discussion about this. If accepted and readily available the decrease in abortions in this country would be substantial. It seems radical "pro-lifers" are against this. Makes me question their motives on all counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is yet another example of why our government sucks....we don't have a professional bureaocracy(sp?).....there are too many political appointees that have control over common sense decisions......remove the politics from the equation and our government could be run better and more efficiently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. It's amazing that there is even a discussion about this. If accepted and readily available the decrease in abortions in this country would be substantial. It seems radical "pro-lifers" are against this. Makes me question their motives on all counts.
"Pro-Lifers" are against it for the same reasons their against abortion, the belief that life begins at conception.

You see, I am Pro-Life. I believe life begins at conception. I'm allowed to believe that right? I also am known as a Reformed Evangelical, which means I interpret the context of the Bible as absolute truth. Now being that these are my beliefs, like every other person on this planet, including pro-abortion folks, I am going to attempt to change the society and culture around me to fall in line with my values. If you are liberal, you push society to adopt liberal practices and laws. The same for moderate and conservative.

The main difference between Evangelical Conservatives like me and others is that I believe that morals are not determined by men and are not subject to relativism. The belief is that there is a Moral Law written by God that is the standard for righteousness, the Ten Commandments, and this includes do not murder. Abortion is seen as murder because of some passages in the Bible as can be seen in this link: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html

Hope this clears things up for folks about why Pro-life Christians are the way they are and as zealous about it as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pro-Lifers" are against it for the same reasons their against abortion, the belief that life begins at conception.

Conception or fertilization?

More often than many realize, women naturally and involuntarily flush fertilized eggs out of their system during that special time of the month.

So if life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, and women commonly flush fertilized eggs out of their body naturally... does that make every woman that has ever lost a fertilized egg through her period a murderer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pro-Lifers" are against it for the same reasons their against abortion, the belief that life begins at conception.

You are of course free to believe whatever you want, and as I have said in the past I have serious issues with abortion. I don’t like it at all and if I had my way would ban it in cases not concerning health, life, or rape/incest. However the biology here is clear – a woman is not pregnant until a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. If it fails to attach it gets...uh...washed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pro-Lifers" are against it for the same reasons their against abortion, the belief that life begins at conception.

I don't think most pro-lifers equate birth control with abortion. That's why I wrote "radical" pro-lifers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conception or fertilization?

More often than many realize, women naturally and involuntarily flush fertilized eggs out of their system during that special time of the month.

So if life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, and women commonly flush fertilized eggs out of their body naturally... does that make every woman that has ever lost a fertilized egg through her period a murderer?

My mistake, fertilization. We used to say conception until Planned Parenthood got the definition of conception changed to mean when the blastocyst attaches to the Uterine wall. Even the Senate used them synonimously until then.

A women a is not a murderer since it is not a conscious act when her body "washes" them out or when she has a miscarriage. Abortion is a conscious decision, no matter the circumstances, so equating the two is an invalid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A women a is not a murderer since it is not a conscious act when her body "washes" them out or when she has a miscarriage. Abortion is a conscious decision, no matter the circumstances, so equating the two is an invalid argument.
I'm not sure that even considered a miscarriage. It would be considered failure to get pregnant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am as pro-choice as pro-choice can be.

But I'm starting to have a bit of a problem with the way some of these points are being argued.

Life begins at X.

this is not a scientific statement and those that claim to have scientific answers are lying. We are arguing over symantics here and not facts.

Some people belive that it is wrong for a woman to take steps to stop a fertilized egg from growing into a full baby. Some believe that the above is okay, you just can't pull a baby out at nine months and suck its brains out. Some believe that any form of contraception is wrong. These are all opinions and therefore have an unquestionable validity. They cannot be argued.

These are all moral arguments, and for anyone to insistence that science has any business in determining morals is, I think, foolish. This not a question science can answer, and we shouldn't act like it can.

Define abortion however you like, but it's clear that both sides define abortion quite differently on this issue. A continuing insisitence to debate symantics hides the fact that there is a looseness with facts on both sides of this debate. I guess that's what makes this debate so much fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't a preventative measure to keep the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall essentially operate in the same manner that a condom would prevent semen from coming into contact with the egg in the first place?
You forgot that with a condom the egg isn't fertilized, except when it fails.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am as pro-choice as pro-choice can be.

But I'm starting to have a bit of a problem with the way some of these points are being argued.

Life begins at X.

this is not a scientific statement and those that claim to have scientific answers are lying. We are arguing over symantics here and not facts.

Some people belive that it is wrong for a woman to take steps to stop a fertilized egg from growing into a full baby. Some believe that the above is okay, you just can't pull a baby out at nine months and suck its brains out. Some believe that any form of contraception is wrong. These are all opinions and therefore have an unquestionable validity. They cannot be argued.

These are all moral arguments, and for anyone to insistence that science has any business in determining morals is, I think, foolish. This not a question science can answer, and we shouldn't act like it can.

Define abortion however you like, but it's clear that both sides define abortion quite differently on this issue. A continuing insisitence to debate symantics hides the fact that there is a looseness with facts on both sides of this debate. I guess that's what makes this debate so much fun.

You are right that there are many different and confusing viewpoints on abortion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is just going to turn into another abortion debate, but before anyone goes down that road does anyone else get the feeling that science and skepticism are on the decline in America on the whole? I sure do, not that it bothers me THAT much since it seems like the rest of the world is catching up and can make up for what America is disinterested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is just going to turn into another abortion debate, but before anyone goes down that road does anyone else get the feeling that science and skepticism are on the decline in America on the whole? I sure do, not that it bothers me THAT much since it seems like the rest of the world is catching up and can make up for what America is disinterested in.

What is in decline in this country is intelligence. And tolerance. And the belief that citizens cannot be forced to live their lives according to another citizen's religious beliefs. Nothing is more offensive to the founding priniciples of this country.

Nothing is more offensive to me than someone trying to ram their religious beliefs down my throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Bump

The irony is irresistible

On birth control, politics trumps science

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1205590.ece

President Barack Obama promised in his inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place." He should have added "unless politics gets in the way." By rejecting over-the-counter emergency contraception for all females of child-bearing age, his administration has put his re-election campaign above protecting adolescent girls from unwanted and potentially harmful pregnancies. The science flows entirely in one direction — toward better access — but the political undertow pulled the policy backward.

For more than a decade the Food and Drug Administration has been carefully evaluating the safety and effectiveness of emergency contraceptives, better known as morning-after pills, for over-the-counter use. Currently, any female 17 or older may obtain the product known as Plan B One-Step without a prescription, but younger teenagers still need the intervention of a doctor. After considerable scientific research, the FDA was poised to end that distinction and make Plan B easily available to everyone. The agency conclusively found that adolescent girls would benefit from having access to a pregnancy prevention drug that has minimal risks — particularly relative to pregnancy — and can be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse.

For the first time in history, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helluva bump, twa, :) and so far it looks right on the money on your part. So you're not entirely nutzo these days, just like I told 'em. ;):D

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195785-149-0.stm

FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg agreed with the agency's experts: "There is adequate and reasonable, well-supported and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing" age, she said in a statement.

Never mind all that, responded the Obama administration, which has channeled the politics-trumps-science approach of George W. Bush on more than one occasion. Last week, the FDA was overruled by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who announced the age restriction would not be lifted.

"Because I do not believe enough data were presented to support the application to make Plan B One-Step available over the counter ... I have directed the FDA to issue a ... letter denying" the request to drop the age requirement. The request was submitted last February by the drug's manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals.

As explanations go, this one is more blatantly false than most. The denial has nothing to do with any alleged lack of data. The FDA approval process is not the Indianapolis 500, careening around curves at break-neck speed. If anything, it tends to examine evidence at a maddeningly slow pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's odd because Sebelius is, or was, a pretty big pro-choice advocate. My guess is that Obama's administration doesn't want to throw fuel on the Republican presidential candidate campaign fire. So the article is correct, politics trumps science. Ugghh.

Making it readily available would reduce the abortion issue as a political football and make it more a personal choice.(still a life/death issue,but one with minimum govt support)

The resulting loss of fund raising off it would be significant for politicians imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...