Medicine will now be available without a test of religious beliefs. NYT: “U.S. Drops Bid to Limit Sales of Morning-After Pill”
By December 2011, after years of pressure from women’s reproductive rights groups and the companies selling the drug, the F.D.A. was poised to lift all age restrictions. By then the F.D.A. also said it had determined that the drug was safe. But in an unprecedented move Ms. Sebelius overruled the agency. She said at the time that she had based her decision on science because she said the manufacturer had failed to study whether the drug was safe for girls as young as 11, about 10 percent of whom are physically able to bear children.
In April, Judge Korman once again ordered the government to make all morning-after pills available without a prescription and without any sales restrictions. In a stridently worded ruling, Judge Korman wrote that Ms. Sebelius’s decision to overrule the F.D.A. “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”
Well, that’s a relief: the administration has decided to follow science and allow greater freedom to its people rather than base our health laws on dogma advanced by a minority of the population that have fought the president at every turn. Will it be equally enlightened about respecting the right of citizens to a fair trial before imposition of capital punishment, and the right to be free from indiscriminate examinations of personal correspondence? The jury is still out on that one.
Christopher says
…but I’d still wish you would stop stereotyping any and all reluctance and opposition as some kind of rightwing religious dogma.
kirth says
Left-wing religious dogma is also inappropriate as a basis for these kinds of decisions.
Christopher says
…left wing religious dogma lines up with the current decision:)
Bob Neer says
Catholic dogma, as just one example, is often extremely leftist — stressing, for example, concern for the poor and the difficulty, or even impossibility, per Jesus in Matthew, that rich people have getting into heaven — but also opposes access to the morning-after pill.
Christopher says
I guess I was separating the two on an ad hoc basis. The Catholic dogma you describe is leftwing, until you get to the last line at which point I call it rightwing.
jconway says
What’s fun about Francis is he is stressing the universal doctrines the whole Church shares on the poor over the divisive social conservative positions. It’s great since he has angered the neocons over at Forst Things and the Acton Institute with his pronouncements. But yeah, Popes are generally to the left of Marx on economics and to the right of Falwell on social issues. It’s only the latter point that the media, the American left, the American right and American bishops like to harp on. But his politics is not dissimilar to most center-left governments in Latin America and Europe. While Francis and the bishops hate this decision I support it since it will help the abortion rate continue to go down (as it has by nearly 20% since Obama became President)
SomervilleTom says
The phrase in the thread-starter (as of 7:10p on 11-June) is “rather than base our health laws on dogma advanced by a minority of the population”. Perhaps it was edited in response to your comment.
The opposition to Plan B certainly qualifies as “dogma”. Part of it is religious, from those who dishonestly describe it as an abortifacient. Part of it is also religious, from those who oppose any and all artificial contraceptives. Part of it is political, from those who oppose any and all “liberal” policies. All of those views are held by a small and very loud minority of the population, and the overwhelming majority of those who express opposition do, in fact, fight the President at every turn.
Taken together, I think the last paragraph of the thread-starter accurately and succinctly characterizes the opposition.
Christopher says
“Medicine will now be available without a test of religious beliefs.” Plus dogma generally carries a religious connotation at least in my experience.
SomervilleTom says
“Religious belief” is something along the lines of “I believe that the universe is a manifestation of a loving God”. “Dogma” is something along the lines of “Jesus, the son of God, was born of a virgin, was crucified, and rose from the dead.” In my view, the two are quite different.
I argue that the overwhelming majority of those opposed to making Plan B available over-the-counter do so as a reflection of their religious belief AND dogma. They believe that sex, especially among young people, is wrong and immoral. They believe that the threat of unwanted pregnancy is a suitable punishment for transgressing against this religious standard. Many of them also embrace religious dogma that asserts that Plan B is an abortifacient and that abortion is a sin, that using any artificial contraception is a sin, and that sex outside (religious) marriage is a sin.
Any “reluctance and opposition” is more appropriately conveyed across the dining room table than in the official act of a cabinet officer overruling a scientific determination made by the FDA. I feel compelled to note that Ms. Sebelious is a Roman Catholic (though an outspoken pro-choice advocate who was disciplined by Archbishop Raymond F. Burke in March of 2009).
If it were NOT for religious belief and right-wing dogma, this safe and much-needed medication would have been available without prescription years ago.
jconway says
I don’t believe the ardent pro-lifers sincerely want to punish wicked girls with unwanted babies, certainly some of them do, but it’s the misguided belief that Plan B is an abortifacient due to deliberate misinformation within their media bubble alongside exercising full parental control over their children’s sex lives. In fact, you and I debated progressive parents unwilling to give up that control. If they realized how many unwanted children the status quo produced and how prevalent date rape is in highshool and college they wouldn’t be holding their naive view. Perhaps that’s my own naïveté though.
SomervilleTom says
It isn’t just the ardent pro-lifers who argue that making Plan B available “encourages sex”, just as it isn’t just those extremists who argue that sex education in schools similarly “encourages sex”.
I suggest that the bias against sex is primarily, even overwhelmingly, religious in origin. I therefore suggest that those progressive parents who want to “exercise full parental control” are motivated by their religious beliefs.
It seems to me that in the absence of religious beliefs and dogma, there would be little issue about making Plan B available without prescription. Those parents who wish to exercise full parental control might have a great deal to say to their daughters if they notice an empty “Plan B” package in the bathroom trashcan (just as I had a “candid and frank exchange of views” with my children upon finding an empty whiskey bottle on our outside terrace), but I think the ongoing legal issue would have been resolved years ago.
Christopher says
C’mon Tom I really wish you would at least take us at our word when we say our religious belief plays no role in this. I can’t speak for others, but in my case I’m pretty sure I’m actually contradicting my own denomination on this one.
SomervilleTom says
Once again, you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between “majority” and “all”. The majority of those who oppose the Plan B decision are motivated by dogma (including political) and religious belief.
I grant that you claim that your religious belief plays no role in your own opposition. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s immaterial to my argument. The majority is still a majority, even without you.
Mr. Lynne says
… the pro-life position:
Christopher says
…I reject the implication that an athiest/humanist could not be opposed to abortion.
Mr. Lynne says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78_V1Z9CO4
Peter Porcupine says
There HAD been no testing done on the consequences of using such a medication on menstruation development, ability to bear children in the future, etc. for females under age 17. It was dogmatic to insist that this be readily available to 12 year olds over the counter when the long term consequences have never been researched.
It was the judges decision that was free of scientific content, not the Secretary’s.
SomervilleTom says
It took me just minutes to find a clinical trial that included females under 17. Apparently you also missed “Tolerability of levonorgestrel emergency contraception in adolescents“, Cyntha Harper et al, 2004 (emphasis mine):
Further, the most relevant benchmark of risk is to compare the risk of using this medication to the many risks associated with pregnancy. For females aged 12-17, those pregnancy risks are enormous.
Sorry, but the objections you cite here are purely “dogmatic”. The science supporting making this medication available to all females (including those under 17) is compelling. Even more compelling is the objective risk analysis comparing the vanishingly small risk of adverse affects from these medications with the large and well-documented risks associated with pregnancy.
Christopher says
There is no more constitutional right for children to access this medication than any other controlled substance. This is properly a political question for which a legislature has the plenary authority to decide whether it is accessible to minors, or for regulators to decide if appropriate enabling legislation exists.
SomervilleTom says
The role of the FDA is to determine the safety of medication. That is a scientific, not political, determination. I reject any suggestion that the FDA should be making its decisions based on political considerations.
Christopher says
Here I admit to not knowing what the law says. If it authorizes the FDA to act upon safety alone the judge may have cause to say they overstepped. However, if the FDA is making a case for safety I would still say they and not a judge are the experts.