iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Kathleen Sebelius Pressed On Plan B Decision By 14 Democratic Senators

Patty Murray

First Posted: 12/13/11 02:57 PM ET Updated: 12/13/11 02:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to emergency contraception.

Last week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected the Food and Drug Administration's conclusion that the Plan B One-Step pill was safe enough to be placed on pharmacy shelves without an age limit. The decision raised eyebrows because HHS has never before overruled the FDA on a drug recommendation. Many reproductive rights groups openly questioned whether the Obama administration was putting electoral politics above sound science ahead of next year's election.

"We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter," wrote the senators in their letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision."

The senators asked Sebelius to share the "specific rationale and the scientific data" she relied upon when overruling FDA experts.

"On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women's health will be based on medical and scientific evidence," they concluded.

Besides Murray, the Senate Demorats who signed the letter were Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Carl Levin (Mich.), John Kerry (Mass.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also signed on.

HHS did not return a request for comment on the letter.

Sebelius has stated that she rejected the FDA's conclusion because she believed the pill's effect on girls in the 11-12 age range needed to be studied further.

Yet as Susan Wood, a former FDA official who resigned in 2005 to protest what she saw as the Bush administration's politicization of Plan B, has noted, "[T]his type of age restriction, and worries about the use of medicines by teenagers, have not been applied to other products. Apparently there is no problem in allowing younger teens to purchase products such as acetaminophen, and others with known and serious risks, over the counter."

Murray has been a leading voice on Plan B access in the Senate. In 2005, she and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced they were blocking the nomination of Lester Crawford, President George W. Bush's choice to head the FDA, until the agency made a decision about whether to make Plan B available over the counter without a prescription.

Many pro-choice House members have been far more cautious in their criticism of the Obama administration in the aftermath of Sebelius' decision, saying it could be a smart political move if officials are able to expand reproductive rights for women in other areas in exchange for tighter restrictions on Plan B.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to...
WASHINGTON -- Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,252
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
04:44 PM on 12/15/2011
"The decision to ignore evidence and place politics above science continues the current practice of denying adolescents in the US the right to unfettered access to emergency contraception, a safe and effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex." It also sets a dangerous precedent for access to emergency contraception for young women around the world. Read more from Pathfinder International's Callie Simon, Advisor on Adolescent and Youth Sexual and Reproductive Health: http://www.pathfind.org/Field_Journal_Adolescents_Need_Access_to_Emergency_Contraception
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
susanbsbi
Slave to 3 cats
09:32 AM on 12/14/2011
One if your over 16 with proof, the Pharmacist will hand you it, just like the cold medicine. What is wrong with that. If under age 16, why are they having sex. If it is a rape the doctor will give you the prescription to get it. In this age unless your married or in a long standing relationship nobody should be having unprotected sex.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Danger Zone
10:22 AM on 12/14/2011
Not all Plan B is from unprotected sex, condoms break. And the fact remains that most teens do have sex before they are 18. I would rather for them to not be pregnant, wouldn't you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citizen of the universe
Look! A Shepards Beak Whale
01:12 PM on 12/14/2011
I would rather them be safe and utilizing ALL the birth control out there and not having Plan B to fall back on or having pregnancy be the only fear. STD's are real!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TraceyES
07:22 PM on 12/16/2011
That's a great way to prevent unwanted pregnancies in teenage girls. Ask them, "Why are you having sex?" Then the problem will just go away!
08:36 AM on 12/14/2011
It was not in President Obama’s political interest to let this happen. Anyone who believes that this President believes in your cause, be prepared to be thrown under the bus.
08:14 AM on 12/14/2011
I know alot of people on this comments section support having this pill available but it doesn't sit right with me. Yes I am aware of it's expense but why don't we ask ourselves how the companies who make this pill benefit from it being available to everyone. do we really have hard solid scientific evidence this pill will not harm these young children in the long run? have we all reviewed these findings and looked at who funded the testing? stop and think people!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Danger Zone
09:12 AM on 12/14/2011
Plan B has had FDA approval since the 90's just like Claritin and Viagra. It's not a new drug. It's been used on tens of thousands of women and girls and the medication in Plan B itself is used on many women and girls continuously in other modes of access to the body in the form of regular oral contraception, the IUD Mirena, and Implanon. I believe if Plan B had the exact same proven side effects and risks but treated headaches or allergies instead, no one would be making a big deal about it. There would have been just as much of a fuss about the so called state of juvenile health as when Monistat was made OTC (which was not a peep). But because it has to do with sex many people are getting their knickers twisted in a bunch.
12:21 PM on 12/14/2011
Well, perhaps Viagra should be OTC? And why oh why, please tell me why "regualr oral contraception is NOT OTC?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina Belcher
09:20 AM on 12/14/2011
From what I know it is a very strong dose of ingredients that the regular birthcontrol pill has. I am much more worried to see young teens become moms. Pregnancy is a health risks for many moms, and I believe it is especially hard on very young mothers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Frank
My last name is FRANK so thats what I am..
07:32 AM on 12/14/2011
the decision smacks of more conservative/religious meddling in affairs that scientists should be deciding
12:22 PM on 12/14/2011
wrong.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lukebrambles
01:51 PM on 12/14/2011
Yes, you are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thegreenhornet
civil rights lawyer
07:18 AM on 12/14/2011
While some of Obama's decisions have lead me to believe his social philosophy is perhaps ot as progressive as I would like (certainly his stance on gay rights has left me cold) I think is decisinhas more to do with the fact that he has two young daughters.
03:44 PM on 12/14/2011
If only it had more to do with what the science, the doctors and the people who actually care about the health and welfare of this patient population advocated.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
YupIndeed
The cake is a lie.
03:56 PM on 12/15/2011
True. He has openly admitted that having two daughters gives him pause on the issue. I don't blame him for that - it's a justified reaction. However, he is letting his personal life cloud his judgement in this issue, which is not a great idea.
07:10 AM on 12/14/2011
"Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to emergency contraception."

Can I ask the Senator at what age she would allow consensual sex? Should that sex be only heterosexual? And what is her SCIENTIFIC basis for her answers?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Danger Zone
09:02 AM on 12/14/2011
There is no law that criminalizes consensual sex between teens of the same age. The biological reality that we live in is that most teens have sex before they are 18 and the vast majority do not tell their parents.
09:54 AM on 12/14/2011
There is a difference between biological reality and allowing behavior that some would consider unwise for young teenagers.

And you did not answer the question I posed the Senator.

Would you like to try?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PCMartin
Bullish on cat food and refrigerator boxes
12:56 PM on 12/14/2011
Can I ask *you* how your questions are relevant rather than diversionary? SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, Plan B is not just for consensual sex, nor is it needed for homosexual sex. And legally speaking, making it available over the counter to teen girls does not change existing laws governing age of consent.
02:41 PM on 12/14/2011
The science is the diversionary issue.

Allowing juveniles unrestricted access to this "medication" has behavioral and ethical overtones (I have found from the many replies that morality has no place in this modern society). Sad.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janet Logan
Brit, Left-to-Moderate, compassionate, pragmatic
06:10 AM on 12/14/2011
This is a tricky one. Realists argue that teens have sex and don't inform their parents. At least access to a pregnancy-preventing drug (not abortifactant) would keep them from becoming single parents.

Idealists say "not without parental consent" - some would set the bar as high as 17 years old. Fine - if there was a perfect parenting world out there and all kids confessed their indiscretions or sexual traumas to their folks. Even in the best of families there would be pregnancies where none needed to happen because the time frame for effective use of Plan B is quite short.

The problem is that the kids who are in the minority, the ones that really need access to Plan B, have probably very little parental input or supervision and are effectively being made pregnant by the "good" parents.

Surely the child/teen's need to not be pregnant should be paramount?
12:36 PM on 12/14/2011
Fair, balanced opinion. So, if there isn't a bar at 17, should there be one at all. This isn't about banning the pill or stopping the teens from using it. Its about them being properly advised, beyond reading gibberish on the package.

Its also about the safety AFTER the pill is popped. Plan B recommends a doctor's visit within a few days or weeks. I haven't found solid evidence one way or another about what happens if this is taken 5 or 6 days late. It supposedly won't abort, but will it effect the child or a pregnancy that already occurred.

What happens if this becomes a teen-agers primary choice?

This is about just a pregnancy prevented. Its long-term sexual and physical health for these girls
04:23 PM on 12/14/2011
Nothing happens. The reason for the doctor's visit is to ensure that it worked and a pregnancy doesn't exist despite it. It's all in that "gibberish" on the package, that people read before they start popping pills. It won't abort an established pregnancy, and it won't affect it either. Funny how you haven't found any evidence (though all the literature says that it won't have an effect on an established pregnancy) but you conclude that it "will".

Do you have some evidence that teens will start using this as a primary choice, or are you just speculating again?

Long term sexual and physical health for these girls is best maintained by preventing unwanted pregnancy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Janet Logan
Brit, Left-to-Moderate, compassionate, pragmatic
09:55 PM on 12/14/2011
Education - not simplistic abstinence only.
02:52 PM on 12/16/2011
Ask Sarah Pailn.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:52 AM on 12/14/2011
I think it's clear (or should be) why it was blocked. This isn't about WOMEN'S health... we're talking about CHILDREN who would have access to it. Yes, sure they can get pregnant, too. But if my 12 year old was pregnant (which would have NEVER happened) and used the pill without my knowledge or consent during a time in her life when I'M solely responsible for her health and physical well-being, I would NOT be a happy camper! Under 17 is simply too young to make a smart choice about much of ANYTHING. There's a REASON why no one is considered an adult until a certain age. They REQUIRE parental guidance (and most of them well BEYOND the age at which they are actually legal adults!) This is a smart call on the part of the administration.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
DallasDon
Dyslexics Of The World Untie! Yes, I Have Sexdaily
05:19 AM on 12/14/2011
Hi Sobay!
I can't get a reply to post to you on the other thread, so I'm catching up to you here...

I miss staying up and hanging out with you guys late at night, but I'm off work 'til after the first of the year, so I hope to see you more often.

Here's a fancy little something for you...

°º·¤.­­­¸`­­­­°º­·­¤­.¸`­­­­­°­º·­¤.¸`­­°·­¤.¸­­º­·º.¸ (¯`­v´¯­) ¸­.­¤­·­º°­­­´·¤º°´°´­¸­­­.­¤­·­­º°­´¸­­.­¤­­·­­º°´
.¸º·¤.¸ CONGRATULA­­­­­­­TION­S sobaytransplant! `­­­­°º·¤.­­­
¸.¤·º°´¸.¤­­­·º°´´*¤.­­­­¸ 1,066 Hundred Fans!.­­­¸­*`·¤°`º·¤­­.­¸*`°º·¤.­­¸
. ~ ღೋ ☺♪♫ ~ ♣ ~ ♠ ღೋ ೋღ ♠ ~ ­♣ ~ ♫♪ ☻ ೋღ
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
05:25 AM on 12/14/2011
Thank you, darliin'! I feel terrible! I didn't get you anything! LOL

Miss you, too! We've been knee-deep in tr0lls around these parts with these GOP primaries. Looking forward to having your back-up again!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Danger Zone
10:56 AM on 12/14/2011
This ruling has nothing to do with parental guidance. A girl can still go to a clinic and get a prescription without her parents consent or knowledge.
12:38 PM on 12/14/2011
yes, but with an adult at least trained, and involved, even detachedly that's better
04:50 AM on 12/14/2011
I like Patty Murray......alot.
The minute she leant her name to this preposterous "Supercomittee"
I knew she was TOAST........

Patty...everything you worked for........everything WE worked for....to get you elected....
ERASED!!!....

by a minutes choice to believe in what professional liars like Obama & Schumer
said (but they PROMISED!!).........set back the influence of Washington State.....and the influence of Women generally .....oh ...not much....just a DECADE or two!!!

Got your candy stolen by the BIG boys on the playground did ya'?

Foolish little girl.......

It's OK Patty.......It'll only take two or three DECADES for a woman to be taken seriously again in Wash.

Grrrrrr
tm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
YupIndeed
The cake is a lie.
04:05 PM on 12/15/2011
Would you rather have Murray or Bachmann as your representative?
10:57 PM on 12/15/2011
The answer to that is obvious.......but Murray's decision to rent her credibility to such an obvious sham as the super-committee....makes the prospect of someone LIKE Bachmann replacing her exponentially more likely
tm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:31 AM on 12/14/2011
I simply do not understand how someone who is so fervently against abortion can be against a drug like Plan B, when you consider that what the drug does is PREVENT a pregnancy in the first place if used as directed. Anyone who is against abortion--whether they believe a woman has the right to one or not--should welcome a safe drug that prevents unwanted pregnancies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:55 AM on 12/14/2011
Because it's already legal for women. It's CHILDREN who were in question here. IF they put it on the store shelves and let just anyone have it, you could have 12 year olds using it without their parents knowledge or consent. Sorry - that's no good whether she's pregnant or not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:06 AM on 12/14/2011
If children are having unprotected sex, then the least of your problems should be whether a girl has access to a SAFE DRUG that can prevent an unwanted pregnancy that can significantly and dramatically alter the girl's life forever. And just what makes you think a child will be able to afford the habitual use of this drug without a parent? You're framing the argument as if the issue is really about a child's safety, but it appears that you'd rather let a child become pregnant and possibly undergo an abortion with our without consent and with or without a parent's knowledge.
04:30 PM on 12/14/2011
You do realize that this drug won't harm her, but all those other drugs out there, like Tylenol can be used without her parents consent or knowledge as well right? Drugs that can actually kill her, which this one cannot do?

If that's the argument, then all OTC meds should be age restricted.
03:22 AM on 12/14/2011
And besides, 11,12,13 and 14 year old girls shouldn't be having sex in the first place!!!!!! Period!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProChoiceGrandma
Proud Progressive Liberal
03:30 AM on 12/14/2011
In a perfect world, they wouldn't. Neither would 15 and 16 year olds. However, the USA has the highest rate of teen pregnancies (ages 15-19) of the developed world. The fundies are turning the USA into a 3rd world nation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:58 AM on 12/14/2011
I still say you can't let girls under 17 have it without parent knowledge and consent, though. The parents are legally responsible for them and have every right to know what sort of physical issues they are having - even if that issue happens to be pregnancy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atomkinder
10:35 AM on 12/14/2011
Will that stop them?
03:20 AM on 12/14/2011
Drug policies don't exist in a vacuum. Go try to buy a bunch of pseudoephedrine containing drugs without an ID. That's not based on science, either. Kids can't by alcohol or other types of substances either.

The fact is that minors are the responsibility of their parents. If the parent is responsible, it is their duty and role to manage access to medications especially of the life-altering variety.

I'm all for abortion, I wish more people would have them instead of spitting out 5 kids they can't take care of by the age of 22. The issue is minors aren't able to consent to sex, and they shouldn't be able to consent to its consequences.

Suppose a neighbor raped a 13 year old girl and got her pregnant. Should she just be able to brush it under the rug and go buy some abortion pills? Is that in her best interest that he be able to continue to rape her?
photo
oneeasyrider
E=mc2: From light you exist
04:10 AM on 12/14/2011
You're ignoring the underlying problem. For whatever reason, 750,000 teens deal with unwanted pregnancies every year. Teens simply aren't prepared for the responsibility emotionally or financially.

Most eventually end up on welfare. Don't you want to try to prevent the problem? Plan B is a legitimate attempt to deal with the problem and recognizing teens don't or won't always talk to an adult is just reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
05:01 AM on 12/14/2011
Nope. Your argument doesn't hold water. Okay, teens DO get pregnant, but they need to understand that if they DO, they will have to alert their parents to the fact and it will be dealt with by ADULTS, not children. 13 year old girls do NOT wind up raising kids on welfare. You can't GET welfare until you are a legal adult.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Danger Zone
08:54 AM on 12/14/2011
Plan B isn't an "abortion pill". It doesn't work if you are already pregnant. Rapists can already buy condoms from a bathroom vending machine, are you against that too?
kmichal2000
just netflix Burzynski
03:07 AM on 12/14/2011
Don't worry libs, Big Pharma is with you.
Lost of good customers possibly lost just because they are underage girls who maybe should not be able to get pills that might have pretty bad side effects.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tweeksmom
Pppfffftttttttt.....
06:39 AM on 12/14/2011
Nope. No bad side effects. Plan B has been proven very safe. More people have been harmed by Tylenol than can be harmed by Plan B.
04:37 PM on 12/14/2011
Aww, Big Pharma is your bed fellow and after all the sweetheart deals you've given them, they are very much on your side still.

Plan B isn't a money maker, it just protects women from becoming pregnant against their wishes, or having to resort to abortion. Hmm, shouldn't you be all for this, considering your favorite boogeyman is "Big planned parenthood"?
kmichal2000
just netflix Burzynski
03:02 AM on 12/14/2011
Why do dems think that teenage girls should be able to administer dangerous drugs to themselves?
Why not make all dangerous drugs available without prescription?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
05:05 AM on 12/14/2011
Most Dems do NOT think that. I don't. The administration who is blocking this doesn't. I have no idea who these women are that are pressing the issue, but I certainly plan to find out!

Women's health rights - yes. Children having health right's without parental knowledge or consent - NO!
12:51 PM on 12/14/2011
Just wanted to say way to stick to your guns...by your micro-bio I am certain we are on opposite ends over all.

The key is children and a parent knowing if the child pursue's such a pill they will be informed by an adult on its consequences, effects and the expectations of a doctor visit soon after its taken.

You are on point.
01:38 PM on 12/14/2011
But, children having sex without parental knowledge is ok with you, right? Because it's happening all over, and they aren't asking mommy or daddy first.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina Belcher
09:26 AM on 12/14/2011
It's not a dangerous drug. Going through preganancy is far more dangerous, I think. Many kids are on all sorts of meds from over the counter cold drugs, to allergy medicine, aspirins, birth control...
All of which have side effects.
12:52 PM on 12/14/2011
so why aren't birth control pills OTC?