A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
The federal government Wednesday rejected a request to let young teenage girls buy the controversial morning-after pill Plan B directly off drugstore and supermarket shelves without a prescription.
 In a rare public split among federal health officials, the Health and  Human Services Department overruled a decision by the Food and Drug  Administration to make the drug available to anyone of any age without a  restriction.
 In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the  medication could be used safely by girls and women of all ages. But she  added that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had rejected the move.
 “I agree ... there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and  science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and  should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of  child-bearing potential,” Hamburg said.
 “However, this morning I received a memorandum from the Secretary of Health and Human Services invoking her authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act  to execute its provisions and stating that she does not agree with the  Agency’s decision to allow the marketing of Plan B One-Step  nonprescription for all females of child-bearing potential,” she said.
 In a separate statement and letter to Hamburg, Sebelius said she overruled the FDA because she had  concluded that data submitted by the company that makes the drug did not  “conclusively establish” that it could be used safely by girls of all  ages.
 “About 10 percent of girls are physically capable of bearing children by  11.1 years of age. It is common knowledge that there are significant  cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and  the youngest girls of reproductive age,” Sebelius said. “If the  application were approved, the product would be available, without  prescription, for all girls of reproductive age.”
 The surprising decision is a stunning blow to some doctors, health  advocates, family-planning activists, members of Congress and others who  backed relaxing the restrictions to help women prevent unwanted  pregnancies.
 “We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump  science,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies  Project, a Washington-based advocacy group. “There is no rationale for  this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the commissioner’s own  letter. Unbelievable.”
 Susan F. Wood of George Washington University, who resigned from the FDA  in 2005 because of delays in relaxing restrictions on Plan B, said she  was “beyond stunned” by the decision.
 “There is no rationale that can justify HHS reaching in and overturning  the FDA on the decision about this safe and effective contraception,”  Wood said. “I never thought I’d see this happen again.”
 Opponents had urged the agency to reject the move, saying such a  decision would expose girls and women to potential risks from taking  high doses of a potent hormone, interfere with parents’ ability to  monitor their children and make it easier for men to prey on vulnerable  minors.
 “This is the right decision based on a lack of scientific evidence that  it’s safe to allow minors access to this drug, much less  over-the-counter,” said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). 
 The request followed a series of steps in recent years that have  gradually made Plan B easier to obtain. Had it been approved, the pill  would have moved out from behind pharmacists’ counters, eliminating the  requirement that women produce a prescription or prove that they are at  least 17 years old to get it without a doctor’s order. Instead, Plan B  would have been available on store shelves, along with condoms,  contraceptive sponges and spermicides.
 Plan B consists of a synthetic form of progesterone; this hormone is  found in many standard birth-control pills, but Plan B contains it at  higher doses. Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, the pill has  been shown to be 89 percent effective at safely preventing pregnancy.
 The drug has long been controversial and was the focus of one of the  biggest health disputes during the administration of President George W.  Bush. Plan B works primarily by preventing an egg from being  fertilized. Critics, however, focus on the chance that it might prevent a  fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, an action they consider  equivalent to an abortion. As a result, it has been the subject of  intense debate and conflict. Some doctors refuse to write prescriptions  for it, some pharmacists refuse to fill requests, and some hospitals  refuse to provide it to patients.
 The FDA approved Plan B in 1999, but only for women who first obtained a  prescription from a doctor. With strong support from women’s health  groups and family-planning advocates, the drug’s maker asked the FDA in  2003 to ease the rules to allow totally free sale without a prescription  so women would not have to scramble — often in late-night or weekend  panics after having sex without protection, having a condom break or  being raped — to find a doctor to write a prescription and an open  pharmacy to fill it.
 Conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups have opposed every request to  relax the restrictions on Plan B. They question the drug’s safety and  whether young girls and women would use it properly without a doctor’s  supervision, and they argue that wider availability could encourage  sexual activity and make it easier for men to have sex with underage  girls by forcing them to take the drug to prevent any pregnancies that  could result.
 In addition, by removing the need to see a doctor, women and girls would  miss an opportunity to receive diagnoses and treatment for sexually  transmitted diseases, and parents would have less influence over their  children’s behavior, critics charge.
 The FDA delayed a decision on the original request to relax the need for  a Plan B prescription for three years, despite endorsements of  nonprescription sales by its outside advisers and internal reviewers.  The delay spurred intense criticism during Bush’s administration that  the agency was allowing politics to influence the decision.
 The agency eventually approved nonprescription sale of Plan B in  August 2006, marking the first time a hormonal contraceptive was made  broadly available in the United States without a prescription.  Proponents, however, were disappointed that the drug was limited to  women age 18 and older and sued the FDA.
 Three years later, the agency allowed the sale of Plan B One-Step, a new version that works with one pill instead of  the original two, to 17-year-olds without a prescription. But the  decision came only after a federal judge ordered the FDA to make the change, ruling that the restrictions were imposed for “political and ideological” reasons.
 In February, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries asked the agency to drop the  remaining restriction, citing the results of two new studies. One  involving 335 girls ages 12 to 17 showed that between 72 percent and 96  percent of them understood the proposed package label well enough to use  the drug safely and effectively on their own. The second, involving  about 300 girls ages 11 to 16, showed that they could use the product  properly and safely, according to Teva.
 “We have a tremendous amount of safety information regarding this  particular product. It is classified as very, very safe,” Teva’s Amy  Niemann said before the decision.
 The lawsuit that spurred the FDA’s relaxation of restrictions is  pending. A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 13 on a motion to declare the  agency in contempt of court for failing to review its decision to leave  age restrictions in place.
 Another morning-after pill, Next Choice, the generic version of the  original two-pill Plan B that sells for about $35, is available only by  prescription.
 
   
  	 
  	  
   
  	 
  	  
   
  	 
  	  
   
  	 
  	  
   
  	 
  	 Postpartisan depression: The Democrats join the War On Women
 
 by digby
 
 Good news. It looks like we've finally gotten the long awaited  post-partisan achievement: the Democrats have joined the war on science.  And women! It's a twofer:
 
In what can only be called an astounding move by an Administration that pledged on inauguration day that medical and health decisions would be based on fact not ideology and for which women are a major constituency, today Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overruled a much-awaited decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make emergency contraception (EC) available over-the-counter (OTC) to women of all ages.
According to the New York Times, "no health secretary has ever [overruled an FDA decision] before."
EC has been available over-the-counter for women ages 18 and older for at least two years. The FDA has been further reviewing data on whether the method should be available OTC without a prescription to those age 17 and younger at risk from unprotected intercourse.
In a statement this afternoon FDA underscored that it "had been carefully evaluating for over a decade whether emergency contraceptives containing levonorgestrel, such as Plan B One-Step, are safe and effective for nonprescription use to reduce the chance of pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse."
Experts, noted the statement, "including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential."
So,  the battle is obviously no longer only about abortion (if you had any  doubts.) In this case, it's about denying emergency birth control for  the very people who are most likely to need it --- teenagers --- and are  the least likely to seek a prescription. 
 
 
 I'm guessing the official rationale here is that parents need to  be informed if their 17 year old daughters are having sex. That's very,  very practical. I'm sure this will result in much closer parental  guidance for their teenagers' sexuality. Lord knows, that age group has  never had sex until now but who knows what will happen if they get a  "get out of jail free" card and go wild? Why, they'll just start  sleeping with each other all over the place.
 
 The data shows that teenage girls can handle this:
 
CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step. Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.
Teenage  girls are dealing with all sorts of "down there" bodily accoutrements,  so I think they can read the instructions and understand what it all  means. The idea that they need to see a doctor (and probably tell their  parents) is nothing more than an attempt to make it difficult for them  to use this without involving adult authority in their sexual behavior  --- the very last thing they want to do. This form of birth  control works when someone uses it immediately after unprotected sex.  Making them go through hoops totally defeats the purpose.
 
 
 
 If parents are worried that their girls are having sex without their  knowledge, they need to wake up to the fact that they probably are.  Requiring a prescription for this form of birth control will not change  that, it just makes it more likely that their daughter will get  pregnant. Why parents think that's a good result I don't know.
 
 I'm all for parents talking about sex with their kids and passing on  their values. But making teenagers bear children against their will for  succumbing to the most natural, biological urge in human experience  seems like a dreadful, superstitious value to me. Making it more likely  that they'll have an abortion seems like some kind of cosmic joke.
 
 And those who are sentencing young women to a life's promise cut short  by early parenthood because of some religious belief that having  non-procreative sex is a sin that must be punished are, in my mind,  working for the other side (if you know what I mean.) It's just  wrong and I continue to be gobsmacked that I'm living in 2011 and these  throwback views are once again gaining in currency.
 
 Kathleen Sebelius is now going to eat the sins of the administration. I hope she likes the taste of it.
 
 Update: 
 
"This decision is stunning," said Susan Wood, former head of the FDA's Office of Women's Health who resigned in protest over the agency's handling of the drug in 2005.
"I had come to believe that the FDA would be allowed to make decisions based on science and the public's health. Sadly, once again, FDA has been over-ruled and not allowed to do its job," Wood said in a statement.
Yeah, a lot of people thought that.
 
 Update II: I'm hearing that this is the fault of the women's  groups for not being better organized. Normally, I would agree that they  are pretty hapless --- and hopelessly compromised. But all indications  are that they were told this was a done deal and they were taken by  surprise by the move. 
 
 But it always kind of amazes me that women are considered a discrete  special interest that requires organized advocacy groups to labor on our  behalf. We are half the population. 
 
 
 .
 digby 12/07/2011 12:00:00 PM Comments (102)
