Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)
Fri May 3, 2013, 06:31 AM May 2013

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

[font size=4]Putting Politics Ahead of Science[/font]
[font size=1 color="gray"]By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 2, 2013[/font]

< . . . >

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)
3. The point of the editorial is that it WAS about the politics of Plan B when Secretary Sebelius . . .
Fri May 3, 2013, 07:07 AM
May 2013

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

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
4. there were politics when Reagan slept for 7 years while AIDS killed one million
Fri May 3, 2013, 07:26 AM
May 2013

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

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
9. Thanks for the opportunity to read him on Kos-I am going to post one in the anti-gun forum
Fri May 3, 2013, 10:37 AM
May 2013

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

Progressive dog

(6,905 posts)
5. What is wrong with this administration
Fri May 3, 2013, 08:49 AM
May 2013

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.

B Stieg

(2,410 posts)
6. It's "rhetorical fear."
Fri May 3, 2013, 09:59 AM
May 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NY Times Editorial: Putt...