In A Word
Gerald Eisman
March 20, 2006
Inaction: Lack, or absence of action.
Plan B is in the process of being scuttled, not by legal process or, as is the case many times, vocal denigration by members of this administration, but by inaction on the part of a governmental agency. Such inaction compromises the effectiveness of the agency and reduces it to the level of a useless conglomeration of ineffective members. Unfortunately, when the inactive agency acts against the general welfare of the populace, the result becomes a definitive political weapon.
Regardless of the agency's purpose, be it in the fields of education, science, or public health, the public expects the government and its agencies to act in the best interest of the populace. Such actions taken should be based on the latest and most scientifically accurate information available.
Those expectations, however, are being swept under the political carpet in the case of Plan B.
Plan B, for those who aren't familiar with the term, is a drug, approved for use by the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) to prevent pregnancy after the fact. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, the drug can prevent pregnancy in most cases. Such prevention would significantly reduce the amount of abortions performed in this country, a definitive goal of the majority of Americans.
Acting FDA commissioner Andrew C von Eschenbach, when questioned concerning the delay, responded that the agency was carefully reviewing the thousands of comments received in response to last-minute concerns raised about making the product available without a prescription.
That statement, when coupled with several others made in recent weeks, translates to a simple no, we won't allow it. Von Eschenbach, like his predecessor, is either unwilling or unable to allow science to guide decisions made concerning the health of American citizens.
The question is, why the delay? What objection could the agency possibly have to allowing the over-the-counter sale of a proven safe medication for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies?
Perhaps the answer lies in the insistence of a small, but highly political, group to label emergency contraception as abortion, both by confusing the two terms, and outright giving false and inaccurate definitions. The truth is, this product does not cause abortion but eliminates most need for one, and isn't that what the "moral right" want?
Emergency contraceptive pills work in exactly the same way as other birth control pills. They do not interfere with, or cause harm to an existing pregnancy. They are merely an increased dosage form of regular birth control pills. Physicians have been advising women for years on how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy by taking several of the usual birth control pills. So, what is the difference if women take one pill rather than many?
On the other hand, RU-486 is a pill that can, and is prescribed for, the termination of early pregnancies. There is absolutely no relationship between the two products.
Americans rely heavily on the FDA for determining the safety and effectiveness of our medicines, vaccines, durable medical devices and protection of our food and blood supplies. They shouldn't have to worry for one moment about items such as are regulated by the FDA, and rightly so. The reputation, however, of the agency is being brought under scrutiny by its food-dragging practices in this area.
The first application for the availability of Plan B as an over-the-counter product was files almost three years ago. The assumption was, rape victims and women in general could get a second chance to prevent an unwanted pregnancy thus avoiding the need for abortion. Why the FDA and von Eschenbach are dragging their feet on this issue is a mystery that begs two questions. When did adult access to contraception become such a controversial problem, and who, if anyone, is pulling the strings of the FDA?
Plan B is in the process of being scuttled, not by legal process or, as is the case many times, vocal denigration by members of this administration, but by inaction on the part of a governmental agency. Such inaction compromises the effectiveness of the agency and reduces it to the level of a useless conglomeration of ineffective members. Unfortunately, when the inactive agency acts against the general welfare of the populace, the result becomes a definitive political weapon.
Regardless of the agency's purpose, be it in the fields of education, science, or public health, the public expects the government and its agencies to act in the best interest of the populace. Such actions taken should be based on the latest and most scientifically accurate information available.
Those expectations, however, are being swept under the political carpet in the case of Plan B.
Plan B, for those who aren't familiar with the term, is a drug, approved for use by the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) to prevent pregnancy after the fact. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, the drug can prevent pregnancy in most cases. Such prevention would significantly reduce the amount of abortions performed in this country, a definitive goal of the majority of Americans.
Acting FDA commissioner Andrew C von Eschenbach, when questioned concerning the delay, responded that the agency was carefully reviewing the thousands of comments received in response to last-minute concerns raised about making the product available without a prescription.
That statement, when coupled with several others made in recent weeks, translates to a simple no, we won't allow it. Von Eschenbach, like his predecessor, is either unwilling or unable to allow science to guide decisions made concerning the health of American citizens.
The question is, why the delay? What objection could the agency possibly have to allowing the over-the-counter sale of a proven safe medication for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies?
Perhaps the answer lies in the insistence of a small, but highly political, group to label emergency contraception as abortion, both by confusing the two terms, and outright giving false and inaccurate definitions. The truth is, this product does not cause abortion but eliminates most need for one, and isn't that what the "moral right" want?
Emergency contraceptive pills work in exactly the same way as other birth control pills. They do not interfere with, or cause harm to an existing pregnancy. They are merely an increased dosage form of regular birth control pills. Physicians have been advising women for years on how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy by taking several of the usual birth control pills. So, what is the difference if women take one pill rather than many?
On the other hand, RU-486 is a pill that can, and is prescribed for, the termination of early pregnancies. There is absolutely no relationship between the two products.
Americans rely heavily on the FDA for determining the safety and effectiveness of our medicines, vaccines, durable medical devices and protection of our food and blood supplies. They shouldn't have to worry for one moment about items such as are regulated by the FDA, and rightly so. The reputation, however, of the agency is being brought under scrutiny by its food-dragging practices in this area.
The first application for the availability of Plan B as an over-the-counter product was files almost three years ago. The assumption was, rape victims and women in general could get a second chance to prevent an unwanted pregnancy thus avoiding the need for abortion. Why the FDA and von Eschenbach are dragging their feet on this issue is a mystery that begs two questions. When did adult access to contraception become such a controversial problem, and who, if anyone, is pulling the strings of the FDA?
Print
Email
