iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Plan B Over-The-Counter Initiative Nixed By Kathleen Sebelius, Age Limit Remains In Place

Plan B

First Posted: 12/07/11 02:04 PM ET Updated: 12/08/11 01:50 PM ET

The Food and Drug Administration recommended on Wednesday that Plan B One-Step, commonly referred to as the "morning-after pill," be made available over the counter without age restrictions, but an Obama administration official overturned that recommendation.

After ten months of reviewing scientific data, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg decided on Wednesday that emergency contraception should be made available to everyone over the counter.

"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," she said in a statement.

But in a surprising and unprecedented move, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent Hamburg a memo on Wednesday invoking her authority to veto the Plan B decision, based on the reasoning that adolescent girls may not have the behavioral maturity to understand how to use the morning after pill.

"The science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use," Sebelius said in a statement. "However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. I do not believe that Teva's application met that standard."

The FDA's current rule on Plan B, a hormonal contraceptive that has been shown to be 89 percent effective at safely preventing pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of having unprotected sex, requires women ages 17 and older to ask a pharmacist for the pill. Women ages 16 and younger must obtain a doctor's prescription to access Plan B, which reproductive health advocates say can discourage them or make it logistically difficult for them to prevent a pregnancy.

FDA rulings on pharmaceuticals are supposed to be based entirely on science, but the decision over how to issue Plan B One-Step has been embroiled in politics since 2005. The American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all strongly endorsed over-the-counter access to Plan B with no age restrictions, so that emergency contraception could be found on pharmacy shelves as easily as Tylenol. But the FDA suspiciously delayed the decision in 2005, and then decided in 2006 to approve the drug without a prescription only for women 18 and older.

A U.S. District Judge ruled in 2009 that the FDA had "repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons" and forced the FDA to lower the age to 17 and re-review the rationale for its decision. Teva Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures the pill, filed a new application in February of this year to re-label Plan B as over the counter.

Women's health advocates said Wednesday they were shocked by Sebelius' decision.

"We are outraged that this Administration has let politics trump science," said Kirsten Moore, president and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. "There is no rationale for this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the Commissioner's own letter. Unbelievable."

"We had every confidence that this Bush-era policy would come to an end," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "The Obama administration has broken a key promise to the American people that it would base its decisions on sound science and what's in the best interest of women's health. In short, this is a failure to deliver change."

Anti-abortion groups, who have long argued that increasing access to Plan B could pose health risks to young girls and encourage men to rape them by making it easier to cover up the evidence, said they were relieved by the decision.

"The Secretary made the right call today, putting the health of women and girls ahead of politics," Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Life, told HuffPost on Wednesday. "Misuse of abortion-inducing drugs can lead to death. Such drugs need to be handled with great care and under a doctor's supervision. They should not be administered late in a pregnancy because of risk of severe bleeding. In addition, they make vulnerable women and girls even more at risk to abusers who may acquire the drugs to cover up their criminal behavior."

A spokeswoman for Teva Pharmaceuticals, Denise Bradley, said the company plans to determine its next steps after receiving a full response letter from the FDA.

"We commend the FDA for making the recommendation to approve providing women with increased over-the-counter (OTC) access to Plan B One-Step(r)," she said on Wednesday, "and we are disappointed that at this late date, the Department of Health and Human Services has come to a different conclusion."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
The Food and Drug Administration recommended on Wednesday that Plan B One-Step, commonly referred to as the "morning-after pill," be made available over the counter without age restrictions, but an Ob...
The Food and Drug Administration recommended on Wednesday that Plan B One-Step, commonly referred to as the "morning-after pill," be made available over the counter without age restrictions, but an Ob...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,587
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (135 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rex Devious
If you don't vote, don't bitch
10:20 PM on 12/12/2011
Unless this ruling is accompanied by a law that says anyone 16 and under who asks for a doctor's visit must be given one -free of charge - within no more than 24 hours; the drug is still effectively banned for all but the most privileged young women.

Oh, and the penalty if a woman is *not* given an appointment in time: Kathleen Sebelius has to personally cover the entire cost of the pregnancy, including if necessary the birth and all related child raising expenses - up to the age ooooohh... 16.

Which I'm *sure* she'll have no problem agreeing to, as she clearly is willing to bet the lives of *others* on the notion that prescription requirement won't result in anyone getting access to Plan B before it's too late.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WoolyBumblebee
Creator of TruthAndOblivion.com
04:44 PM on 12/10/2011
"based on the reasoning that adolescent girls may not have the behavioral maturity to understand how to use the morning after pill."

So, by this rationale they are too behaviorally immature to take the pill, but not to have a baby. Is that right? Someone please explain how that makes an ounce of sense!
photo
lemealone
It will take more than condiments to foil my brill
12:23 PM on 12/11/2011
So now old enough to ha e a baby is old enough to drink alchohol, vote, etc?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Danger Zone
01:35 PM on 12/11/2011
Biologically speaking, one is old enough to have a baby when one undergoes puberty. For me that would have been 11. Obviously that's too young for anyone to have a child. But mistakes do happen and I would trust a girl with one simple pill before I'd trust her with pregnancy and having a child.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WoolyBumblebee
Creator of TruthAndOblivion.com
04:24 PM on 12/11/2011
No. You are not getting the point. If one says that a person is too behaviorally mature to take the pill, then it would follow that she would be too behaviorally immature to have a child. And so banning abortion would make absolutely no sense. The pro-lifers want to have their cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work like that. They just stated a person 17 and under is too behaviorally immature to be able to take a simple pill. So how would forcing that child to have a baby be better? How is one incapable of taking a pill, but on the other hand fully expected to care for a baby? The whole thought process here is irrational.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WoolyBumblebee
Creator of TruthAndOblivion.com
04:29 PM on 12/11/2011
"If one says that a person is too behavioral­ly mature to take the pill"

Should have said behaviorally IMMATURE.

Oops!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PiedType
Old editors never die, they just revert to type
11:57 AM on 12/10/2011
There is no scientific or medical reason to put an age restriction on something that has been proven safe to use by all ages. That leaves only political and religious reasons, and no one should have the right to impose those on other people. It's hard to imagine anyone would insist on the continuation of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted babies when this pill could help reduce the numbers. But then, it's easy to be high and mighty when you're not the one being affected, the one pregnant against your wishes, the one having a baby you don't want and can't afford.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joel Mendez
actual atheist reverend
11:47 AM on 12/10/2011
yes, that's what was stopping rapists and incestuous fathers and uncles from raping young women! thank goodness they can't cover up their tracks anymore!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chockolate
Four swirling square pegs in a round hole.
03:39 AM on 12/10/2011
Any time there comes a choice to give people more choice and opportunity or not, what do you think the federal government will do?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Puzzlr
thegrouphugdotorg
12:54 AM on 12/10/2011
In other related news, middle school kids are having sex. Details after the break.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joel Mendez
actual atheist reverend
11:48 AM on 12/10/2011
no, it's not sex if it's oral or anal. sex is only for makin' da babies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
incognito-ergo-sum
ProgLibFemHumanist. Thanks tax payers for paying
07:33 PM on 12/09/2011
If it is for sale over the counter, then men and boys can buy it for girls. Or didn't anyone think of this? Can we really limit the access to an otc product to women only?

And, once again, this just makes people find ways to get around it. Have an older friend buy it, have your mom buy it.

We have a whole generation of young husbands who buy feminine products for their wives all the time now. Buying this will not be any different.
photo
olehippie
expect nothing and you will never be disappointed
09:28 AM on 12/10/2011
Excellent point. The laws regarding sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors comes to mind.

Same thing happens on a regular basis.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PiedType
Old editors never die, they just revert to type
11:59 AM on 12/10/2011
Who ever said it should be for sale to females only?
03:02 PM on 12/09/2011
I've heard of some mothers giving birth control to thier teens with out the teen even asking. maybe this should happen more often because teens are shy and dont know how to obtain birth control on thier own. parents shouldnt assume but should prepair teens.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TheHandyman
Death...the last new experience you will ever have
08:11 PM on 12/09/2011
Any parent who gives their daughter birth control pills without their knowledge or consent is not a fit parent. A real parent would be having conversations about this. The real truth is that parents are either too shy or too ignorant to initiate the conversation themselves. And if adults refuse to take responsibility then we need to make damn sure our schools are doing a good job of teaching sex education and something other than abstinence only!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joel Mendez
actual atheist reverend
11:50 AM on 12/10/2011
"...without their knowledge or consent..." agreed, but it's a pill. there's no james bond stuff here. the neighbor put her daughter on the pill a few months back. she knows she's taking it.
03:02 PM on 12/12/2011
Be realistic... teens are not gonna stay pure like back in your day..and obviously the parents arent gonna slip birth control in thier coffee! it could be with the consent of the teen and it would motivate a talk about it and the teen would know its available if they decided to go forth with being sxualy active so please go school some one that needs to be lectured.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
DCMike
one of my closest friends is str8.
01:29 PM on 12/09/2011
Becoming a grandparent is something that will be announced to you. You won't be invited to the process.

If you are uncomfortable with the thought of your children's intimate life, imagine how uncomfortable they are with the thought of you being in it. Some things will never change.

Plan B gives young women a tomorrow that belongs to them. Let them have it.

Parents are so good at turning a blind eye to their own youthful sexual indiscretions when they have kids. Try to remember what being a teenager is like.
02:22 PM on 12/09/2011
I do remember -- very well. Controlling sexual behavior through fear is doomed to failure.

If this drug is considered to be safe for adult women to take without a prescription (because some adults can be just as idiotic as young teens) then it's safer than some of the other extremes a frightened teen might consider.

Really, folks, if you don't want your daughters exposed to this risk, then be honest and forthcoming with them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joel Mendez
actual atheist reverend
11:53 AM on 12/10/2011
what's funny is, we put "do not use in the bathtub" warnings on hair dryers. stupid is stupid. if a kid gets pregnant, the smart ones will read the package, the dumb ones won't. sad? yes. but then, if we sell hair dryers, which can kill anyone, why not a pill which *might* hurt the kids dumb enough not to read the package labeling?

and you're right. on all counts, btw.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
brt929
06:27 PM on 12/09/2011
Thank you.  I think you said that very well.  

Fanned.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:41 PM on 12/09/2011
Those railing against this and calling it strictly political are equivalent to Ron Paul libertarians who will follow a principle to a cliff rather than make a slight detour toward practicality and rationale. People so blinded with "reproductive rights" that they will champion anything! If pornography is proven to promote the w/drawal method, or alcohol proven to decrease likelihood of male erection thereby decreasing potential pregnancy, do we then fight to make pornography and alcohol available to 17 and under kids in the name of reproductive rights and access to treatment? I mean, at some point you just have to be sane, no? It's such a morally bankrupt culture to not think a 17 and under, having sex, and at least one episode of unprotected sex (under whatever circumstances), should see a doctor. This teen could not only get the Rx for PlanB but also make an appt for STD testing, and consultation about alternate birth control options if whatever method they are using isn't working. This argument is exactly like the stupidity known collectively as "Washington", politics before people. So concerned with what you stand for rather than who you stand for. And I submit anyone thinking kids under 17 have a right to morning after pills... you aren't thinking of the kids.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TheHandyman
Death...the last new experience you will ever have
08:07 PM on 12/09/2011
Your comment is so predictable by those of the willfully ignorant and gleefully stupid. I doubt you could even begin to discuss the Biological Imperative that drives humans. You mistakenly believe in the absurd notion that this is a moral issue rather than a scientific and biological one. Mother Nature doesn't give a fig for all your shouldn'ts, wouldn'ts. and couldn'ts. She deals in reality. A smart culture would give more, not less education to their children as they pass through puberty. They would give them more counseling about sex and they would then make sure that if they do it they were protected from the unnecessary burden of pregnancy!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:50 PM on 12/12/2011
Terms like "stupid" do nothing to support your arguments, except perhaps to make you seem less educated. Nonetheless, I don't believe that morality and science can't coexist in a decision or opinion. I think just because a drug is deemed safe for all ages, it is neccessarily appropriate for all ages. Science provides the facts, it's up to humans to apply morals and common sense to it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GTKZ
non-republican, non-democrat
09:06 PM on 12/09/2011
A 17-year old person is not a kid. And if Nature didn't intend to "kids" that age and younger to have sex, why then do they mature sexually and become able to reproduce at that age?

I try to, I do, but I cannot understand American's fear of sex. I think it's partly because of the sex-is-bad culture that so many "kids" are dying to do it asap.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:38 PM on 12/12/2011
A 17 yr old is a kid by my definition. Expectantly more mature than a 12 yr old kid, but a kid all the same. I don't understand where you get the idea that I am afraid of the realities of sex and sexuality. But if one is to follow your logic, that nature intends for kids to have sex as evidenced by their ability to reproduce, then wouldn't nature want them to actually "reproduce"? So in that case planB would be going against nature as much as trying to keep kids in their child-bearing years from having sex does.
11:22 AM on 12/09/2011
A better approach would have been to keep the restrictions in place, but lower the age 1 year to 16+.
09:58 AM on 12/09/2011
FDA is simply a puppet on a string for the pharma companies. Lobbyists run them and they run them well. When they should ultimately be on the protective side of the general public, they find themselves being swayed by the dollar signs being waved at them left and right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
09:46 PM on 12/08/2011
I urge the President to fire Ms. Sebellius. The sooner the better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakawaka09
Capitalism is a cult.
08:17 AM on 12/09/2011
She gets her marching orders from the Prez. BTW, does anyone who can think, still find Obama to be a liberal?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Querent
I say the things that have to be said.
04:52 PM on 12/09/2011
The world is so simple, when you're willing to oversimplify everything. Simple ideas for simple minds.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
brt929
09:30 PM on 12/09/2011
Why would you want Sebellius fired?
07:49 PM on 12/08/2011
To say giving uncensored access to this pill is better than having kids raising kids is a somewhat valid point. But to do this with a clear conscience with regard to their long-term physical health, you have to be making the assumption that a high percentage are practicing safe sex. You better be right, or the "free ticket" just made the chances of those immature children getting STD's skyrocket.
I would offer this: If it ever gets OTC status, watch the sales. If the number of sales only increases slightly over the current 17+ market, then the decision to give it OTC status may have some validity. If stores find that they cant keep it on the shelves because it's selling too fast, then you seriously need to re-think things, because you just increased the number of younger children having unprotecte­d sex. No baby, no foul type of mentality.
I'd rather give them information designed to make them wait to have sex, and still have the parents involved for special situations.
06:00 AM on 12/09/2011
Logic ... you're doing it wrong.

Let's break it down.

Plan-B pill available over the counter to anyone without age restriction equals increased chance of STDs. Um, WTF?!? It's people like you that require the posting of warnings like "This will not protect against STDs" on birth control pills.

No, a Plan-B pill isn't going to increase teen sex anymore than free condoms increase teen sex. Condoms merely offer a safer way for the *inevitable* teen sex. The Plan-B pill merely offer a way to address the "whoops factor" of teen sex.

Information only goes so far in discouraging teen sex. They will have it anyway, if they choose, no matter how much info you push in their face. What about the teen who is being diddled and poked by daddy, older (fertile) brother, uncle, trusted, male family friend, etc. and the teen can't talk to the parents about it because that means the beatings continue? Are they to just "suck it up" and have their chimo love child or should they have a safe, relatively private way to make sure the abuse is the extent their life is f*cked up and that the sudden emergence of an ankle-biter doesn't add further insult to injury?

Your slippery slope is dragging you in. Please flush on your way out. KTHXBYE!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakawaka09
Capitalism is a cult.
08:20 AM on 12/09/2011
Excellent post.
08:50 AM on 12/09/2011
A lot of girls, over many years, have been hesitant to go "all the way" with their boyfriends for fear of getting pregnant. The easier it's made for them to complete their sexual experience, without fear of getting caught, then the easier it will be for them give a "yes" instead of a "no". Again, watch the sales figures, if it's ever at OTC status. It will reveal quite a bit, I believe.

With regard to all the poking and what not that you seem fixated on, I will amend my last sentence.... " and still have the parents and physicians involved for special situations"
It's difficult sometimes to post a comment that can completely fill in all the gaps for everyone, especially with the limited amount of space allowed. Most of the time, I can effectively communicate my thoughts to the 99% that are forward thinking cognitive individuals. I sincerely apologize. If I had known I had the other 1% reading the post, also, I may have done things a little differently.
06:10 PM on 12/08/2011
I agree with their decision because first of all they ain't suppose to be having sex anyway. Second parents need to know what medication that their children is taking and they need to learn responsibility for their actions. Third they right they don't know what that gone do to a young person body, it could cause them not to be able to have children in the future.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
squirrely girl
Assistant Professor ~ Developmental Psychology
02:36 PM on 12/09/2011
1 - folks have been having sex as teens for quite some time
2 - parents often don't know what their children are taking (see: prescription pain pill abuse)
3 - decisions regarding safety of medicines are those that medical professionals should make, and no, this pill does not cause infertility :/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GTKZ
non-republican, non-democrat
09:18 PM on 12/09/2011
Why ain't they supposed to be having sex anyway? Based on what fact? If that's your opinion, that's fine, but that's all it is--an opinion. I do agree with you about parents, or whoever is responsible, knowing about the medications a minor takes. As to this medication preventing those who take it from having children in the future, that's just unfounded fear. The morning after pill made of the same synthetic progesterone alone or progesterone + estrogen used for the birth control pill, which, under typical circumstances, doesn't cause infertility.
10:12 PM on 12/09/2011
So you saying that it's ok for kids to be having sex.(so that means kids as young as 10 year old can buy this and yes there are some 10 years that are already having sex and babies. Look it up it's in the news sadly.) This pill will basically make the kids think that they can do anything without risks and they haven't fully tested what this pill can do on someone young. (You do know there are people have had side effects from birth control right like Yaz and Ortho for example.)