But one member of one of the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee had reservations: Dr. W. David Hager, a Christian conservative whom President Bush appointed to lead the panel in 2002 (outcries from women's groups forced him to give up the leadership post, but he remained a panel member.)
His reasoning? Not safety or efficacy. No, Dr. Hager said he feared that over-the-counter Plan B would increase sexual promiscuity among teenagers.
His objection drew flak on a number of fronts, as the Times article recounts:
F.D.A. staff members presented research showing that these fears were ungrounded: large-scale studies showed no increase in sexual activity when Plan B was available to them, and both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Adolescent Medicine endorsed the switch to over-the-counter status. Others argued that the concern was outside the agency's purview: that the F.D.A.'s mandate was specifically limited to safety and did not extend to matters like whether a product might lead to people having more sex.
Hager had support within the FDA leadership — though one might question the rationality of that support:
Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy commissioner for operations at the F.D.A., had also expressed a fear that making the drug available over the counter could lead to "extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B."
Sex-based cults, huh? O-o-o-o-kay. But fine, there are a few nuts in every tree. At least they're minority opinions that don't carry much weight, right?
Wrong. In May 2004, the F.D.A. denied the application, citing some of the same reasons as Hager. Two months later the drug's manufacturer reapplied, this time restricting over-the-counter sales to women 16 and older — thus addressing the adolescent issue. That application is the one that the FDA famously refused to rule on. To this day Plan B is only available by prescription.
Why the opposition to Plan B? The stated reason is that it is an abortifacent, on the theory that at least occasionally it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg. But since Plan B is simply a higher dosage of regular birth-control hormones, the same arguments could be applied to the Pill. And IUDs. (And breastfeeding, BTW). And never mind that many of these same groups also oppose other forms of contraception such as condoms and diaphragms. Or that this represents a moving of the goalposts in the abortion debate.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dawn
Dude, you are preaching to this choir. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and subsequently abortion, is to provide reliable, effective, easily accessible and cheap contraceptives.
How hard is this for people to figure out. Sheesh!
2 - Dave
The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to make [me] swallow it.
3 - Victor Plenty
Ah, the right wing view, presented with refreshing honesty. Except, no; not really refreshing. Comment #3 is more nauseating than refreshing.
But its honesty is certainly... unusual.
4 - Dawn
Once again, I missed a little troll action.
I am married, I don't have to swallow :)
5 - Roscoe collins
abortions are in both ways wrong and right. Its the wrong way to prevent pregnancy. Condoms and pills are good ways but abstinence is the best. just pulll out before you cum. those are better than abortions.
lets say your 12 years old and you were raped by your psyco uncle. would you want to have that child? hell no! i think we need to limit abortions and have a stricter limit on them. 1 abortion per person. if your one of those people who have had like 3 why dont you just get spayed?
6 - Baronius
"And never mind that study after study have found abstinence-only programs to be ineffective."
Actually, that statement is inaccurate. Abstinence pledges have been found to be ineffective. Abstinence-only programs are hit and miss, as are ABC programs. Abstinence-only programs with mentoring have been shown to be successful.
7 - Dawn
Does mentoring mean chaperoning?
Until we find hormone suppressing drugs for teens, young adults & adults of child-bearing age, unwanted pregnancies are going to happen.
How about effective birth control? Oh wait, that violates G*d and man.
There is zero hope helping some people figure out the friggin' obvious.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dawn,
Where is it written that Christians of any stripe have a monopoly on G-d? The argument for birth control, if it must be made, should be made on religious grounds first, and then on practial and utilitarian grounds.
9 - Dave Nalle
I'm for the hormone suppressing drugs. Let's make all the boys into chemical eunuchs until they're 18!
Dave
10 - RedTard
"I repeat: feel free to be personally against contraceptive use. But don't use the levers of government to force everyone else to conform to your beliefs."
It's a one way or the other deal. Either you'll force your values on conservatives or they'll force theirs on you. Conservatives have long contended that sex education should be limited and schools should teach math and science instead. In fact, it is your side who is trying to force your view of sexuality on everyone through sex education, not the other way around.
It's hard to be on the offensive and play the victim at the same time but you pull it off well.
11 - Michael J. West
have long contended that sex education should be limited and schools should teach math and science instead.
One could very reasonably argue, RedTard, that sexuality IS science--biology, if you'll recall. Indeed, it is one of the two or three most important processes in all of human biology.
12 - zingzing
um... redtard... sex education is pretty damn important. would you rather be in south africa or somewhere where they act like it doesn't exist. kids need to understand the process and how things happen... teenage pregnancy, aids, stds... these are not things you should remain ignorant about. that should be pretty obvious. ignorance isn't a conservative value, is it?
13 - ss
In RT's case...
you be the judge.
14 - Dave Nalle
The contention of mainstream conservatives - not religious wackos - who have opposed sex ed in the schools is that it is something they would rather have parents teach kids than strangers. Much the same attitude I have towards religion in school. I don't want my kids to learn about it from other kids proselytizing for cultlike churches at public school. IMO it's a perfectly reasonable position to take. Much better than trying to keep it in the schools and warp the curriculum to fit a political or religious agenda.
Dave
15 - zingzing
hrm, and i think that it's pretty damn obvious that parents don't always do the best job. not only is it uncomfortable, they aren't trained (either in biology or psychology) to do it. if you treat it clinically, rather than the dreaded "birds and the bees" conversation, it is more likely to stick. plus, with all of those other kids around, questions can be asked (and answered by a professional) and materials (such as actual biological texts, pictures of stds, etc) can be accessed. it's not "warping the curriculum to fit" any agenda. it's a health issue.
16 - Michael J. West
I think it has to be a joint project of educators and parents.
We don't have to deal with any moral/emotional aspects of sex in school, but leaving everything--including the biological/physiological aspects--to the parents has been proven, over and over and over and over again, not to work. It results in generation after generation growing up woefully, appallingly ignorant about sex--the central fact of human existence.
Leave issues of whether sex is clean or dirty, sinful or healthy, natural or perverted, to parents. School has no business discussing those things, as Dave intimates, for the same reasons that they have no business dispensing religious dogma. But if we deny them formal, institutional education about sex from people who actually know the physiology of it, we are doing our kids a spectacular disservice.
17 - RJP
"abstinence and learning about birth control are not opposing concepts."
Sean that statement couldnt be farther from the truth - they are diametrically opposed. Lets see - one says - sex is reserved for married partners and carries with it a responsibility to raise children. It teaches skills and virtue neccessary to prepare oneself for such a commitment.
The other says - sex is for pleasure only, and you must rely on these companies and these technologies to spare yourself from the natural consequence of this pleasure. You are incapable of
waiting until you are ready for marriage. You are a slave to your base desires, and they must be obeyed.
Abstinence teaching - responsibility, stable family societies.
Contraceptive teaching - slave to your desires, a generation of single mothers and absent fathers.
18 - zingzing
not knowing condems exist - AIDS
19 - Michael J. West
Abstinence teaching - responsibility
Unless telling someone "There's such a thing as sex, but don't engage in it" is your idea of sex education in its entirety. That's damned irresponsible.
20 - Sean Aqui
Replies to various people:
#10: It's a one way or the other deal. Either you'll force your values on conservatives or they'll force theirs on you.
Nonsense. For one thing, many schools allow parents to opt their kids out of sex ed. For another, it's not about values; it's about giving kids knowledge. For a third thing, who is the single biggest influence on kids? Their parents. The school telling a kid about birth control isn't going to overcome that. It's like conservatives are arguing that their parental influence is so weak that they can't explain to their children, "yes, condoms can reduce the change of pregnancy. But premarital sex is still a bad idea for the following reasons."
#17: Sean that statement couldnt be farther from the truth - they are diametrically opposed. Lets see - one says - sex is reserved for married partners and carries with it a responsibility to raise children. It teaches skills and virtue neccessary to prepare oneself for such a commitment. The other says - sex is for pleasure only, and you must rely on these companies and these technologies to spare yourself from the natural consequence of this pleasure. You are incapable of waiting until you are ready for marriage. You are a slave to your base desires, and they must be obeyed.
I suppose if you teach it that way, you'd be right. But that's just not reality. Especially the "sex is for pleasure only" part.
I trust teens to make smart decisions if they're given accurate information. If you put up a chart showing the advantages of abstinence vs. other forms of birth control, abstinence wins on the merits. So trust that. And be happy that the folks who fail at abstinence aren't making a bad situation worse by getting pregnant.
You seem to think that only telling people about abstinence will somehow keep them from finding out about sex. It has never worked that way.
Schools provide the information; parents provide the values. That's the way it's supposed to work. Conservatives want schools to either provide their values or not provide anything. Neither choice is a good solution.
21 - Baronius
Zing, should the government do everything that parents aren't always the best at?
22 - Josh
G.K. Chesterton once said, "The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous."
Michael, what RJP says is not irresponsible. While it is true that teenagers may have sex, the goal of abstinence is to convince them to take it seriously and realize that it is not a game. The major goal is to get across that sex requires an absolute commitment.
23 - zingzing
baronius--of course not. by your reasoning, the govt shouldn't put warnings on cigarettes, they should just expect mama to tell you it's bad for you.
why is it bad for me, mama?
i don't know, it just is!
parents should definitely back it up. but, unfortunately, many (many) parents will either skirt the responsibility, or they will screw it up. if every parent was a good parent, we would have died off long ago...
acknowledging that sex exists, and talking about it in a non-judgmental group of people is the best way to educate our youth on the subject. let's face it... a lot (not all) of the people that don't want sex talked about in class are the same people who won't talk about it at home. they are the same ones who would judge their children for wanting to know (even if they didn't want to judge them). they are the same ones who will spread dangerous ideas (like describing abstinence, then forgetting to add the "BUT! if you do, you should use a condom," because we all know that kids will do exactly what their parents tell them NOT to do.)
24 - Kiel
This is rediculous, why should the government believe they should have any control over what we do in our personal lives. This is simply the damned christian zealots trying to enact control over our entire lives. If you want to use contraception cool, if you don't well no skin off my back. If you want to try and contol mine and others descion to well,.,.,.,fuck you!
25 - Kiel
Also one more thing, demonizing sex, like many (not all abstinence) programs do is a greeeat way to encourage kids to have sex, since most rebellous teens will do what there told not to. The best way to do anything is provide all the information, the ins and outs if you will. Then let people make a descion on there own.