Opinion

The Great Debate

Plan B: where politics trump science. Again.

By Amanda Marcotte
December 8, 2011

By Amanda Marcotte
The views expressed are her own.

Wednesday morning Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the FDA’s long-awaited decision taking age restrictions off Plan B emergency contraception. The change would have allowed those 16 and under to buy Plan B, moving it from behind the pharmacist counter and into the shelves alongside aspirin and condoms. But now that won’t happen.

The decision confounded the medical community as well as the women’s rights world. Since no HHS Secretary has ever overruled an FDA decision of this sort before, the widespread assumption, best articulated by Matt Langer at Wonkette, was that Sebelius was working under “marching orders from an administration now fully in re-election mode” and fearful of getting a reputation as somehow “soft” on teen sexual activity.

Sebelius admitted to no political calculation, and instead claimed to be concerned about supposedly inadequate research into the effects on 11- and 12-year-olds who might use the pill. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, no doubt irate at being told she and her entire team don’t know how to do their job as well as non-medical professional Sebelius, denounced this argument, and defended the extensive research done to assure that Plan B was safe for over-the-counter sales. Taking into account the evidence, and the drawn-out political battle over emergency contraception, it’s safe to say that Sebelius did choose political pandering over women and girls’ best interests.

Sebelius was remarkably vague with her concerns about the differences between those under and over 16 years old when it comes to using Plan B. There’s no reason to believe even the youngest girls who access the drug are in any physical danger, which is why groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics support its use for their young patients in need. Emergency contraception is simply a single, high dose of the birth control pill, a drug that girls in the first years of reproductive age (and women far older than them) have been using for decades on a daily basis for contraception and other health reasons. (One formulation of the daily version of the pill, Ortho Tri Cyclen, is even marketed directly to teenagers to control acne.) The most serious common side effect of correctly-taken Plan B is nausea which tends to last for a few hours. (As opposed to the months of nausea that come along with pregnancy.)

The lack of evidence of physical danger to young teenagers taking the pill correctly meant Sebelius was left with mealy-mouthed claims that the dangers to young teenagers were due to the unique inability of girls 11 to 16 to understand the instructions and take the pill properly. She claimed that “there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age,” and then provided no evidence to support the contention that girls 11 to 16 cannot be expected to take the pill correctly.

This claim defies common sense as well as scientific research. Plan B is expensive enough–$35 to $50–that it prevents young women from using it multiple times a month. And it’s a single dose pill. It’s easier to incorrectly take Advil. What else does Sebelius want, a chewable? But in case common sense doesn’t do it for you, the research compiled by the FDA should. Two studies, which FDA Commissioner Hamburg described as “designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs”, one involving girls 12 to 17 and one involving girls 11 to 16, showed that they teenagers understood the package well enough to take the medication without a doctor’s supervision.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Israeli manufacturer of Plan B, met every standard the FDA uses to evaluate whether or not a drug should be sold over-the-counter with no age restrictions, and they met the standards years ago. In 2005, Bush administration officials also hijacked the over-the-counter approval process, citing vague concerns about the decision-making skills of the under-18 set. The Government Accountability Office excoriated the politicized process that kept Plan B behind the pharmacist counter, noting that out of the 67 proposed prescription-to-OTC switches considered from 1994 to 2004, Plan B was the only one whose application was denied despite the advisory committee’s recommendation for approval.

In other words, we’re seeing a pattern.

1.)   Teva applies to sell Plan B over the counter.

2.)   The medical experts weigh the evidence and agree with their application.

3.)   But political appointees with ties to the White House block the switch, citing vague concerns about the decision-making abilities of teenagers.

No one wants 11-year-olds to have sex, of course, but that concern shouldn’t play a role in this. In a press release addressing Sebelius’s decision, the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research institute that studies sexual health, noted that fewer than 1 percent of 11-year-olds are sexually active, but almost half of teenage girls are having sex by age 17. There’s no evidence to suggest that making Plan B available to all teenagers will somehow push younger teenagers to start having sex in greater numbers. If Sebelius actually had concerns about the effect of this drug on the behavior of younger teenagers, she could have looked to Canada, where Plan B is sold over the counter without age restrictions, with no discernible outbreaks of promiscuity in junior high school. Meanwhile, the United States still has a teen birth rate three times that of Canada’s, which easy access to Plan B could help curb.

Over the past decade, more than 70 medical organizations, the bulk of the FDA’s review committees, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research have all endorsed selling Plan B over the counter with no age restrictions. The only person left standing against the switch is a career politician with a background of lobbying on the behalf of trial lawyers, whose job depends on her boss getting re-elected. Sebelius’s claim that she’s standing up for better science instead of pandering to American fears about teenage sexuality sounds hollow. As hollow as all those Republicans who flaunt the experts to deny climate change.

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks before signing an executive order directing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action to help further prevent and reduce prescription drug shortages, protect consumers and prevent price gouging in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington October 31, 2011. Standing behind Obama is Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Comments
3 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Americans want to use the titillating allure of sex to sell everything from cars to magazines but they do not want to educate children frankly and factually on their own sexuality, they do not want to see condoms advertised at dinner because they might have to explain to a curious child what a condom is (I guess its easier to explain Viagra, Ciallis, and claw-foot bathtubs), and they certainly do not want to believe that ‘daddy’s little girl’ would ever do any of those naughty sex things until she is married!

Now, daddy’s little boy is a totally different matter; he’s just learning to be a man and the girls that he does those things with are bad girls and deserve to get pregnant or worse! They certainly do not deserve unfettered access to a drug that would somehow remove the pregnancy consequence from their wanton behavior! That will just ‘send the wrong message’. The boys that get them pregnant, well, ‘boys will be boys’ they are just ‘sowing their wild oats’ but those girls should have to pay for their behavior.

These are the same people who do not want their teens to have access to the pill, who do not want sex education in schools, who want abortion to be made illegal for all women (except of course those who can afford a private physician or trip abroad), and think that a ‘just say no’ policy will work. (Gee, it’s working so well with drugs, lets try it with sex too!)

What else should we expect in a country where we are seemingly unable to have a calm rational adult conversation about anything. Not politics, not finances, not drugs, and certainly not sex. Sad.

Posted by MidwestVoice | Report as abusive
 

Amanda Marcotte? The Marcotte who wrote this gem:

“When young men learn about sex from porn, they tend to be inconsiderate lovers who know little about pleasing a woman. And young women are left not really enjoying sex and developing unhealthy attitudes about their bodies.”

—Amanda Marcotte

Did women in the recent past have unhealthy attitudes about their bodies because they married younger and did not buy into the promiscuity and alcohol empowerment program? How about having fewer “partners” as an approach to respecting and loving your “body” and maybe more quality men will love it and the rest of you too. Note to feminists: men are not here to accommodate some fantasy regarding pleasuring your body when it comes to f—-g around [now euphemistically labeled “sex positive” behavior] and they are certainly not obligated to be there for you years later to commit to you and your “broken in” healthy attitude about your bodies.

Likewise, men are not here to accommodate your abortion needs after a night of Marcotte-rated crappy drunken sex with a guy who had no reason to satisfy your “entitlement” for pleasure. Is that Spring Break behavior really worth all that displeasure and the risk of pregnancy? Think!! Women are the gatekeepers

Posted by RougeHuman | Report as abusive
 

I guess for Sebelius a pregnant 11 yo is less risky than improperly swallowing two pills. On the other hand, if these girls cannot take pills how can they use condoms; which are sold over the counter. Maybe we should return to the good old days when you had to ask the town pharmacist for any contraception. Change indeed Mr Obama.

Posted by doualezos55 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •