Thursday, December 8, 2011

Politics Indeed

Even abortion rights advocates agree; this decision was political. Health Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has declared that the morning-after pill will continue to be held behind the counter and available to teenagers 17 and older only, except with parental permission. This contradicts the strong recommendation of the FDA.

This excerpt from the Associated Press on Bloomberg.com

"We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science," said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, an advocacy group. "There is no rationale for this move."
"What else can this be but politics?" said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, an advocacy group that supports making Plan B available to all ages. "It's not science. It's not medicine. It's not women's health."

Indeed, FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg made clear in her own statement that the decision is highly unusual. She said her agency's drug-safety experts had carefully considered the question of young girls and that she had agreed that Plan B's age limit should be lifted.

As the primaries heat up in Iowa, the Obama administration cannot afford to follow through with this rule change, despite how desperately they would like to. It is completely naive to assume that the administration did not have anything to do with Sibelius' announcement. It is likewise naive to not assume that if President Obama is re-elected, the rule will be immediately changed. The President has shown no hesitation in using Executive power to advance the pro-abortion agenda.

The morning-after pill works in the same way that most regular birth control pills work, albeit in a more concentrated and sudden way. The drugs are designed to delay ovulation and prevent implantation. In the strictest sense, these drugs may cause the death of a fertilized egg. A website that brings together basic facts about how the morning-after pill works can be found here. Even Planned Parenthood admits that "In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus." Their website goes on to insist that this is not abortion.

We should ask ourselves whether-
1) Disregarding a legitimate definition of human life (conception) is a good principle
(Why is there so little honest debate on this most vital question? We ignore it at our peril.)
1) Undercutting parental control and responsibility is a good principle
(Should we legislate to the lowest common denominator?)
2) Empowering irresponsible behavior is a good principle
(Why do we spend so much time accommodating behavior instead of addressing it head on? Don't we all understand that quitting smoking, a behavior change, is the best way to reduce cancer risk?)
3) Further distancing our children from sound medical advice via a family physician is a good principle

1 comment:

  1. OK, you convinced me. I was hoping to give some credit to humanistic motives being involved in this. I am weary with the press crediting politics with anything anyone does these days! So maybe the press is right. Please no!

    ReplyDelete

There was an error in this gadget