Consider the Can of Whoop-ass Opened

Decision on Plan B Called Very Unusual.

A long-awaited report on the 2004 Food and Drug Administration decision to reject an application to allow easier access to the "morning after pill" concludes that the decision was highly unusual, was made with atypical involvement from top agency officials, and may well have been made months before it was formally announced.

Oh, really?? Color me shocked: meddling in women's private lives, trumping medical science, and dictating so-called morality? Well, I never.

[snip]

Critics of the FDA's May 2004 decision, and of a subsequent postponing of any decision making this August, have accused the agency of giving in to political pressure from social conservatives opposed to the application. While an FDA advisory panel overwhelmingly supported the proposal in late 2003 on scientific grounds and the agency's medical reviewers were similarly convinced it should be approved, the agency's top leaders have said it could not be approved because of outstanding questions about whether it should be available to young girls, and if not, how to keep it from them.

[snip]

Plan B consists of the high dose of a common contraceptive, and can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of having unprotected sex. The FDA does not consider the drug to cause an abortion, but some religious groups believe that under some circumstances it can cause a fertilized egg to die.

AAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGHHH!!!! THIS! THIS RIGHT HERE will be the death of me. I will end up in my grave w/ my fists punching at invisible enemies and my face frozen in a raging grimace (or confounded disbelief), because -- deep breath -- WHY ARE WE NOTING WHAT "SOME RELIGIOUS GROUPS" -- deep breath -- "BELIEVE" (OH.MY.GOD.) ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH????????????????????? AAAAARRRRGGGGH!!

Let's see: on the one hand, we have the Federal Drug Administration advisory panel, which brings this question to a MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL, and both reach the conclusion that Plan B should be approved. On the other hand, we have social conservatives saying they'd rather we not. It begs the question: why in the ever-lovin' mofo'n hell are we asking Jerry Falwell to weigh in??? What in the frickin' farkin' feck does James Dobson have to say about what I decide to do w/ my body??? Since when does medical science bow down to some Bible-thumpin throwback?

Oh. Thud.

Read that last sentence, and try to remember if we live in a) the 21st century, b) America, or c) a Taliban-controlled police state:

The FDA does not consider the drug to cause an abortion, but some religious groups believe that under some circumstances it can cause a fertilized egg to die.

Oh, really?? Well, I believe that under most circumstances social conservativism can cause healthy democracies to die. Let's break the tie by asking the Dept. of Transportation to weigh in, since we're getting non-experts to direct policy all over the place! It's an Opinion Fest, a free-for-all!

False equivalencies, people. The false equivalencies are going to be the death of me. [If my medical needs aren't totally negated first.]

Comments

[JW]

Hey, Transportation experts are relevant here! What do you think sperm do? They transport! ;)

[ae]

JW, heh. 'Tis true!