Handling of Plan B brings FDA resignation

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
This ought to spark debate:

Posted on Thu, Sep. 01, 2005

Handling of Plan B brings FDA resignation

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON – The head of the Food and Drug Administration’s women’s health office resigned Wednesday in a widening protest over delays in deciding whether the “morning-after” contraceptive can be sold without a prescription.

Susan Wood, a biologist and veteran of 15 years in professional positions on Capitol Hill and in two administrations, took the unusual step of publicly announcing her resignation in an e-mail to friends and colleagues that was distributed to the media by a policy group that favors abortion rights.

“I can no longer serve ... when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled,” wrote Wood, 46, who has been at the agency nearly five years and held the title of assistant commissioner.

FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford had announced Friday that even though the drug is safe, proposed restrictions on teenage girls’ access to it have raised legal issues that must be examined in a process that could take months or longer. The FDA had earlier promised a decision by today.

Wood’s resignation brought calls from prominent Democratic lawmakers for hearings into the agency’s handling of the issue. Already under criticism for drug safety lapses, the FDA is being drawn into a polarizing debate about reproductive choice and sexual mores.

Proponents of the drug, marketed as Plan B, say making it more easily available will prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. Opponents, including social conservatives in the Bush administration’s political base, say it will encourage promiscuity, and they liken it to an abortion drug – a position counter to the FDA’s.

An FDA fact sheet about Plan B says it “works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy,” and some outside medical advisers to the FDA said the agency has compromised its scientific reputation.

The FDA issued a one-paragraph statement calling Wood’s decision “unfortunate.” It said regulators had made “significant strides” under her leadership in protecting and advancing women’s health.

Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is considering whether to hold hearings, said spokesman Craig Orfield. Enzi had expected “a firm decision” from the FDA, not further delays, Orfield said.

Wood described herself as “behind-the-scenes kind of person” who is not politically active.

“The reason I left is that if I’m going to be standing there as the face of women’s health at the commissioner’s level, to stand there quietly is to support (the FDA position) ... and I really just couldn’t do it,” she said.

Agency colleagues have called or stopped by to express support, Wood said. “There are people within FDA who are concerned the agency will lose credibility by the way (the Plan B) decision is being handled,” she said.

A conservative group issued a news release applauding her resignation. “Thank goodness there is now one less political activist at the FDA who puts radical feminist ideology above women’s health,” said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

But in a joint statement, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., said that “the FDA and the American people have lost a strong voice for scientific integrity in Dr. Wood.”

Separately, in a letter to Enzi, they asked for formal hearings.

Plan B, made by Barr Laboratories, won FDA approval as a prescription drug in 1999.

Last year, the FDA overruled an advisory panel recommendation and decided to keep Plan B as a prescription drug. But the agency invited Barr to re-apply after submitting additional data, and the company asked that the drug be made freely available to women 16 and older while younger girls would need a prescription. The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has determined that the product can be safely sold without a prescription to women 17 and older.
 
Bush: No 'Plan B' for Quitting FDA Official
by Scott Ott
(2005-08-31) -- President George Bush today accepted the resignation of the women's health director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who quit in protest over agency delays in approving over-the-counter sales of a 'morning after' abortion pill.

The president also reminded the departing Susan F. Wood that "there is no plan B."

"Once you're gone, you're gone," said Mr. Bush in a White House news release. "If Susan wakes up tomorrow morning and regrets what she did today, it's too late. She can't just pop a pill and resurrect her FDA career."

The president said he hopes the incident will highlight the principle that "decisions have consequences."
 
MonsterMark said:
The president also reminded the departing Susan F. Wood that "there is no plan B."

"Once you're gone, you're gone," said Mr. Bush in a White House news release. "If Susan wakes up tomorrow morning and regrets what she did today, it's too late. She can't just pop a pill and resurrect her FDA career."

The president said he hopes the incident will highlight the principle that "decisions have consequences."

Like that's an appropriate adult response.

I've heard kindergardeners with better arguments than that.
 
Just to bring you up to speed, if you click on Scott Ott you'll see he runs the most popular satirical website on the Internet. The site is called Scrappleface.

The guy is a genius and there is an effort to get him a job writing for the administration, he is that good.
 
Here's the part that toasts my wheaties:

A conservative group issued a news release applauding her resignation. “Thank goodness there is now one less political activist at the FDA who puts radical feminist ideology above women’s health,” said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.

:bsflag: All this woman was doing was her job, which is assessing the saftey of drugs proposed by pharmacutical companies. "Radical feminist ideology" my A-S-S.

Leave it to a "conservative group" to attempt to interject their religious beliefs into a government function that is (or should be) 98% science and 2% politics. If plan B works just like the pill, is the pill the next target on their radar?

IMO, if you have testicles hanging between your legs, you should have NO SAY in voting on legislation concering women's reproductive rights. And that's about all I have to say about that.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Here's the part that toasts my wheaties:



Quote:
A conservative group issued a news release applauding her resignation. “Thank goodness there is now one less political activist at the FDA who puts radical feminist ideology above women’s health,” said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America.


:bsflag: All this woman was doing was her job, which is assessing the saftey of drugs proposed by pharmacutical companies. "Radical feminist ideology" my A-S-S.

Leave it to a "conservative group" to attempt to interject their religious beliefs into a government function that is (or should be) 98% science and 2% politics. If plan B works just like the pill, is the pill the next target on their radar?

IMO, if you have testicles hanging between your legs, you should have NO SAY in voting on legislation concering women's reproductive rights. And that's about all I have to say about that.

You just contradicted yourself. You stated that men shouldn't have a say, while citing a quote by a woman. At the same time you imply that only women should have a say, while bashing a woman who actually says something, just because she's part of a conservative group.

What you should say is what you meant: That only liberal, pro-abortion women should have a say in women's reproductive rights.

You really should pay attention to what you write. It's ludicrous. :bowrofl:
 
Some truth finally comes out........ there really was poliltical pressure from RWWs going on at the FDA.

Posted on Tue, Nov. 15, 2005

Congress: FDA was ‘unusual’ on Plan B

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON – Federal drug regulators compromised their usual science-based decision-making process when they ruled in 2004 against letting the morning-after birth control pill be sold without a prescription, congressional investigators said Monday.

A detailed report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office bolstered critics’ charges that the Food and Drug Administration had yielded to political pressure from social conservatives, who feared that easier access to the drug would encourage promiscuity.

In an examination of the agency’s May 2004 decision, the GAO found that “four aspects of (the) review process were unusual” and that the entire decision-making process was “not typical” when compared to how similar cases have been handled.

The contraceptive, manufactured by Barr Laboratories and marketed as Plan B, contains a higher dose of a hormone in regular birth-control pills. It should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex but is most effective in preventing pregnancy when taken in the first 24 hours. Plan B has been available by prescription since 1999, but a decision on over-the-counter sales remains in regulatory limbo after another round of delays this year by the FDA.

“GAO’s final report describes an appalling level of manipulation and suppression of the science,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., who requested the inquiry. “It appears that the decision ... was preordained from the outset.”

His criticism was joined by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who also had sought a GAO probe.

“How can American consumers regain confidence in the FDA if science is so clearly overlooked by its leading officials?” they said in a joint statement. “Despite overwhelming evidence that Plan B is safe and effective, politics trumped science in this case.”

Waxman also questioned whether the FDA disposed of e-mails and other documents that may shed light on the role of then-FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, who now heads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, Waxman said his staff was told by investigators that the commissioner’s office routinely deleted e-mails and did not retain memos and other documents.

Nope, no "Vast Right-Winged Conspiracy" going on here.
 
fossten said:
What you should say is what you meant: That only liberal, pro-abortion women should have a say in women's reproductive rights

And you're saying that only a conservative anti-abortion women should have a say in a woman's reproductive rights. Are you not? He's on one side, you're on the other.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Here's the part that toasts my wheaties:

All this woman was doing was her job, which is assessing the saftey of drugs proposed by pharmacutical companies. "Radical feminist ideology" my A-S-S.

Are you surprized at all? These are the same women who believe that woman is inferior and should serve man, it's been beaten into their heads from childhood. These are the same women who protested against women's rights in the 1800's.

I'm not for abortions, but people are going to have sex and get pregnant, no matter how ridiculously the religious right yells about abstinence. I'd rather they take a pill the next day than abort a living baby.
 
raVeneyes said:
Like that's an appropriate adult response.

I've heard kindergardeners with better arguments than that.

Lol.. He should take his own "decisions have consequences" to heart.
 
fossten said:
Do you even know how the 'morning after' pill works?

Yes, unless what I read about it was liberal fabricated lies. The article also did a quick explanation, see below.

'The contraceptive, manufactured by Barr Laboratories and marketed as Plan B, contains a higher dose of a hormone in regular birth-control pills. It should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex but is most effective in preventing pregnancy when taken in the first 24 hours. Plan B has been available by prescription since 1999, but a decision on over-the-counter sales remains in regulatory limbo after another round of delays this year by the FDA.'
 
Thank you for answering my question with a resounding "no."

Here's how it works:

ECPs (Emergency Contraceptive Pills) contain high levels of estrogen and progestin, which, when taken at the recommended dosage, don't necessarily prevent an egg from being fertilized, but do ultimately prevent the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall, resulting in the embryo's fatal starvation.

The fact is that fertilization can happen as quickly as 15 minutes after sperm have been ejected. That means that the makers of the pill cannot rule out the possibility that a human being has already been formed, which means that this is quite probably a McDonald's version of an abortion.
 
Obviously if the life can not survive without the mother, at that point it is not a life yet, thusly it is not an abortion.

Do you know that in many cases where women are unable to carry a pregnancy it is because the egg can not attach properly to the uterin wall. Sperm can be ejaculated (not ejected...this isn't a basket ball game) and as many eggs fertilized as sperm ejaculated, but no pregnancy will take place because no attachment can be formed.

This is a silly, speculative, egotistical argument against the morning after pill fossten....why don't you come up with something else...perhaps come up with something that explains why you don't think a woman's body should be under her own control, including all the functions of that body such as reproduction?
 
Here's my question, if it takes me to get my girlfriend pregnant, and half the child is mine (two cells, one is mine, I'd call that half mine) then why does she get sole rights to it? I understand a woman's plight in carrying a child, but it took two to tango, and now the decision is out of my hands.

And don't go around saying I'm some RWW because I could never tell a rape victim she had to carry the baby to term. But you know what, when a couple kids screw up they need to be made responsible for their actions. Abortion should not be available unless it is a case of rape, and that means a man is convicted, or the woman's life is in danger. I'm so tired of this abortion issue honestly. It's just another shortcut to take no responsibility in life(except for those reasons listed above).
 
There are a couple issues here, and they need to be addressed individually.

It would be hypocritical of me to argue that this drug should not be made available by perscription. It's a megadose of a birthcontrol pill. Birthcontrol pills work in the same way. So, I certainly agree that this pill should be purchased with a prescription.

Should it be made available over the counter to ADULTS. This is a health issue I can't answer. I'm inclined to say no, but not for a moral reason. Birthcontrol is prescription only because there are side-affects associated with these drugs. In order to prevent the drug companies from lawsuit it seems reasonable to make this a drug available only with Doctors approval.

Should it be available to teenagers or minors. No, certainly not without the permission of a parent/guardian.
 
Your statement is so full of flaws I almost don't even know where to begin.

raVeneyes said:
Obviously if the life can not survive without the mother, at that point it is not a life yet, thusly it is not an abortion.

First of all, you just contradicted yourself: if the life can not survive...it is not a life yet...???

You evidently don't believe that an embryo is a living being. That's unfortunate, but it puts you at odds with the mainstream and labels you a pro-abortionist and liberal.

raVeneyes said:
Do you know that in many cases where women are unable to carry a pregnancy it is because the egg can not attach properly to the uterin wall. Sperm can be ejaculated (not ejected...this isn't a basket ball game) and as many eggs fertilized as sperm ejaculated, but no pregnancy will take place because no attachment can be formed.

There is a difference between an embryo being UNABLE to attach to the uterine wall and being PREVENTED from attaching to the wall. You just made an analogy equivalent to "Hey, Judge, so what if I killed him? People die all the time, and he was gonna die someday anyway!"

Nothing is actually 'ejected' in basketball. You must have meant 'rejected', as in your entire premise in this discussion. Oh, by the way, Mr. Semantics, the DEFINITION of 'ejaculate' in the dictionary (as used as a verb) is EJECT.

e·jac·u·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-jky-lt)
v. e·jac·u·lat·ed, e·jac·u·lat·ing, e·jac·u·lates
v. tr.
1 - To eject or discharge abruptly, especially to discharge (semen) in orgasm.
2 - To utter suddenly and passionately; exclaim; to blunder or blurt.

Definition 2 really fits your last post. You sounded like you were ejaculating.


*owned*

raVeneyes said:
This is a silly, speculative, egotistical argument against the morning after pill fossten....why don't you come up with something else...perhaps come up with something that explains why you don't think a woman's body should be under her own control, including all the functions of that body such as reproduction?

Okay, how about this: Women already don't have control over their own bodies, since in almost all of North America prostitution is illegal. Deal with that.
 
Why is it OK for a woman to give it away, but not to sell it?
 
barry2952 said:
Why is it OK for a woman to give it away, but not to sell it?

Do you really want an answer to this question, or are you just trying to make some broader point?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top