Indeed, this is a very complex legal case, a rattlesnake-filled quagmire of a political issue, and a pressing social issue which will affect women's health for generations. The origin of this nonsense goes to December 2011, when the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, forbade the sale of morning after pills "to young girls without a prescription, saying there was not enough data to prove it would be safe." This happened to occur during the build up to the 2012 Election, and the article depicts the secretary's decision as opportune for the President's campaign.
The decision was made when, based on scientific research showing the drug was safe for women and girls of all ages, the FDA had removed all age restrictions in obtaining over the counter morning after pills. At some point Judge Edward R. Korman decided Ms. Sebelius' decision was "overtly political"; he ordered the FDA and the administration to remove all age restrictions to over the counter access to the drug, and he expanded the scope of the ruling to include generic versions of the medicine.
Now the Justice Department is representing the FDA in appealing the judge's decision, contending that Judge Korman did not have the authority to force the agency to take specific actions. The Justice Department made clear that the White House had not been involved with its decision, and the case will be based solely on the legal merits of the proceedings. Moreover, it is worth noting the judges order may be moot; this past week the FDA made one certain version of the pill available over the counter to girls as young as 15.
So there are several questions we must ask to illustrate the vital nature of this issue. First, why should morning after pills should be available to all women and girls without a prescription? Second, given this recent decision by the FDA, concerning the specific drug now available to fifteen year old girls, is the matter not settled adequately? Lastly, why might there be people who do not want young girls, and perhaps even women of all ages, to not have access to this necessary drug?
For the moment I do not feign any deep knowledge concerning the legal and political complexities of this matter. That is not important, however; the liberty, privacy, and self-preservation of the individual is. The morning-after pill is effective only within five days. While that may seem plenty of time to some, for a female who has just accidentally been inseminated, it is a whirlwind of emotional trauma, intense introspection, and a brief period of life-altering decision-making. In such circumstances, a trip to the Doctor may be infeasible. Maybe they won't have time, or transportation, or money. Regardless, if the drug is safe, surely any female is capable of diagnosing herself as being at risk for impregnation.
Yet should young girls, less than the age of fifteen, be able to obtain an over the counter drug that prevents them from becoming pregnant after unprotected sex? The Times article reported President Obama's feelings on the matter:
"Facing a difficult re-election battle, the Democratic president enthusiastically supported Ms. Sebelius, saying that as a father of two young daughters, he thought it was the right call to have made. 'And I think most parents would probably feel the same way,' he added."Well, Mr. Obama is a good man and a good father. But suppose he wasn't, suppose he was one of those lowest of society: a father who rapes his own daughters. Would it still be the right call?
Like it or not, the parents of American children need to recognize that many kids under the age of fifteen are sexually active. Many of those parents might be sympathetic to some sexually active teenager's plight, buy many will not. There are many parents in America who would condemn or disown a child for that kind of behavior. While I cannot condemn such actions based on religious conviction, I can condemn the destruction of human potential and promise that would certainly result.
Thus it is imperative that morning-after contraception be publicly available to all females. But, certainly for 99% of users, this recent decision allowing girls as young as fifteen access to Plan B One-Step, fully addresses the issue? Clearly this is false because there is an age limit, and the rule only covers a single, proprietary, brand name medicine.
My objection to an age limit is based on any exigent needs of those younger than 15, but my objection to only approving a single brand name product to be available is rooted in injustice. Brand name drugs are more expensive than generic brands, and for the poor this may be a considerable burden; more proof of the adverse effects of inequality on public health.
Admittedly, I am perplexed as to why anyone would be against morning-after contraceptives. I respect those who hold that abstinence before marriage is the only way to prevent unplanned pregnancy, and I support their efforts to spread their message and educate the youth about the benefits of an abstinent lifestyle. However, reliance upon any single approach to sex education is bound to end in failure for an entire population, and the truth is that many people will continue to engage in non-marital sexual activity.
I can also respect people who believe that contraception in general is wrong. Furthermore, I cannot dismiss anyone for believing that abortion is a terrible evil. In fact, I do not entirely disagree, but it is not my place to dictate what healthcare another human being is able to receive. Interference by any person, any group of persons, or even the government, in the medical affairs of an individual is a direct attack on liberty and privacy and should therefore be prevented at any cost. However, the airing of those opinions and beliefs resides in the domain of Freedom of Speech, the most appropriate venue.
But that does not mean that difficult issues, like abortion, cannot be addressed. The beauty of Democracy is that everyone gets to voice their views, negotiate for collective action, and find compromises that allow a society to live in harmony. I have always held that if the Pro-Life lobby and the Pro-Choice lobby worked together, abortions in the U.S. could be driven as close to zero as possible (save for abortions performed out of medical necessity and emergency). Even if abortion were outlawed, criminal enterprises would remain and abortions would still occur, just as illicit drug use thrives today.
To address the social problems of unplanned pregnancy and teenage sex, a dual approach has to be implemented. When I was in High School, according to George W. Bush's policy on sex education, all we learned was abstinence-only education. Did teenagers quit having sexual relations? Did abortions end? Did Sexually Transmitted Infection's drop precipitously? Of course not. But I am positive there were many who chose to remain abstinent until marriage.
For those who did not adhere to those lessons in abstinence-only sex education, it would have behooved them greatly to know about family planning services, education on contraceptive choices, safe-sex, and sexual health, generally. If the two education approaches were combined, and a Pro-Choice-Life coalition emerged, every American of any age could be reached. Unwanted pregnancies could be prevented, alternatives to abortion could be promoted, and the sexual health of the entire nation could improve.
Yet many proponents of "Pro-life" measures have begun to equate the morning-after pill with abortion. To that I have but two things to say: i) if unwanted insemination occurs and the morning-after contraceptive is taken, a full-fledged abortion procedure will never occur. So why would one who despises abortion be against something that prevents abortions? ii) any attempt to impose restrictions on access to medicine and health care, based on personal opinions or beliefs, is an opportunity for Big Brother to step in and begin controlling every aspect of life, liberty, and personal freedom.
It is the duty of the White House, the Administration, the Congress, the Courts, and the Public to sort this out immediately. Instead of prioritizing personal ambitions, Americans need to put the nation first.
No comments:
Post a Comment