But focusing on the age of the women who might use the drug is “completely missing the point of what the FDA was trying to do, which is to make it accessible” to all women, said Dr. Cora Collette Breuner, a member of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at Seattle Children’s Hospital and a representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics.The problem with this statement is that the "women" involved here are teenage girls under seventeen. Now, the lawyer in the book I just mentioned might be a "young woman" (lady) and so forth, but calling her simply a "woman" at age fourteen is a bit off. It also is true that any number of over the counter drugs "potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect."
So, blocking such use of Plan B (as the FDA advised, before the HHS Secretary overruled them) for those that age does not tell me much. The question is if there is something special to that drug, as compared to let's say something that can be misused as an appetite suppressant or whatever, to make it a bad idea to allow it for young adults under seventeen. Perhaps, another lawsuit will be in the works, like the one that led to a decision overruling blocking such use for those between sixteen and eighteen. As noted there:
a decision whether Plan B, a systemic hormonal contraceptive drug, may be used safely without a prescription by children as young as 11 or 12, is best left to the expertise of the FDA, to which Congress has entrusted this responsibility.
These drugs are time sensitive though there should be time -- if the reproductive health resources are available -- to obtain a prescription in many cases. Still, I would imagine (especially given sex on weekends) the delays caused could be problematic and generally trust the experts here who deem it the right decision. The move here was defended on the merits though the article cited above sees it as a political move. I can see it either way -- potential thirteen year olds are involved here. Is there not a way to split the difference somehow? There already was a move to draw the line at seventeen. Why not sixteen or fifteen?
Noting the pioneer nature of this move, Amanda Marcotte noted:
Since you need to take the pills within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, the clock will run out on young women who have to work up the courage to tell a parent, then go to a doctor for a prescription, and then go to the pharmacy. For those who’ve been sexually assaulted, it could be even worse, because a fairly standard response, especially amongst minors, to rape is to bunch up in denial and refuse to talk to anyone about it for a long time. The only reason to keep these restrictions in place is to force pregnancy on unwilling minors as punishment for having sex, and just accept the impregnated rape victims as collateral damage.[XX Factor blog linked by above url.] I don't think so. Forced pregnancy is not the only reason (misguided or not) to not provide such things OTC to young teens. She notes at one point that the pill here uses "roughly the same principle as traditional contraception," but Planned Parenthood here says that birth control pills are given by prescription. If the "clock" is three days, there IS time in many cases to get a prescription. If they are going to go into denial when raped, would they go to the pharmacy? Also, would they have to ask a parent first? Would not there be places that provide reproductive services to minors? Is this a consent issue?
Of course, in conservative and/or isolated areas plus certain times of the month, it will be harder to obtain than in NYC or mid-week sometime. And, the alternatives underline the special nature of reproductive health care in general. There simply is not the same dynamics and complications when a teen has to get eye care or deal with a stomach virus. With the pills already complicated to obtain in some cases even as an adult, any further complication is also upsetting. Still, it simply is not fascist to be wary about giving birth control pills to those under seventeen OTC.
I think the decision is wrong but understandable.