HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NY Times Editorial: Putt...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri May 3, 2013, 06:31 AM

NY Times Editorial: Putting Politics Ahead of Science (Plan B)

Putting Politics Ahead of Science
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 2, 2013


< . . . >

In 2011, the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, overruled the Food and Drug Administration, which had decided, based on scientific evidence, that the pills would be safe and appropriate “for all females of child-bearing potential.” Ms. Sebelius arbitrarily determined that only women 17 and older should have access to the drug.

Then, last month, citing the political nature of Ms. Sebelius’s intervention and finding no “coherent justification” for it, Judge Edward Korman of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the F.D.A. to make emergency contraceptives available over the counter to all women, with no age restrictions.

< . . . >

The administration’s continued stubbornness may please some conservative groups critical of the president. But it will hurt girls and women and is bound to undermine Mr. Obama’s credibility when he calls for principled, evidence-based policy-making on other issues, like global warming.

The Justice Department’s legal argument, moreover, is incoherent. In court documents, it claims that Judge Korman’s order improperly interferes with the F.D.A.’s “scientific judgments” pertaining to the drug approval process. But it was Ms. Sebelius’s interference with science that sparked Judge Korman’s ruling in the first place.

< . . . >

9 replies, 1238 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:03 AM

1. This has now been debunked. This is not about Plan B.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:05 AM

2. I believe there are differing opinions as to whether this has been "debunked" or not n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:07 AM

3. The point of the editorial is that it WAS about the politics of Plan B when Secretary Sebelius . . .

. . . intervened in 2011 to overturn the FDA's determination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #3)

Fri May 3, 2013, 07:26 AM

4. there were politics when Reagan slept for 7 years while AIDS killed one million

 

there were politics when Bush disallowed new stem cell research

there IS politics when guns/bullets are still allowed in the hands of private individuals

there was politics when Jefferson on purpose said women were NOT equal, only men that looked and acted like him.

there are politics involved when there are still draconian republicans, whereas life would be perfect if only President Obama had no opposition in congress and/or especially from people who say they are democratic voters.

the world=politics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #4)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:28 AM

7. You need to meet my friend, Hugh Jim Bissle

I think you two would really hit it off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #7)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:37 AM

9. Thanks for the opportunity to read him on Kos-I am going to post one in the anti-gun forum

 

as the subject matter (guns vs. bicycles injuries from gun shots vs. deaths for each) is really not on topic here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Fri May 3, 2013, 08:49 AM

5. What is wrong with this administration

It was hard to understand the Sibelius ruling in the first place. How many girls have been harmed by this since 2011? The Obama administration wants to appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #5)

Fri May 3, 2013, 09:59 AM

6. It's "rhetorical fear."

How often in the past five years have we seen democrats at varying levels back off on principle because they were afraid of what the right wing noise machine would portray them?

There is something to be said for political calculation, but not anywhere near as much as the DNC or the President believes. Successful policies will still win votes and can still trump arrack advertising.

Yet, it seems we just don't want to risk setting off the other side, and that's disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Stieg (Reply #6)

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:30 AM

8. Timidity is the word you're looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread