Judge Overturns Chickenshit Administration Decision

This is great news, Obama's HHS department pulled this chickenshit stuff after a couple of old white men waived their poutrage flags at them.

Morning-After Pill Ordered To Be Available For All Ages Over The Counter By Judge


A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill, known by its brand name of Plan B, should be available without a prescription or any age or point-of-sale restrictions within 30 days. The ruling is in opposition to a previous decision by the Obama administration.

Judge Edward R. Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled in Tummino v. Hamburg, reversing a prior decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS).

Plan B (Levonorgestrel) is an emergency contraception to be taken within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse to prevent pregnancy. In 1999, it became the first emergency contraceptive approved for use by prescription. In 2006, the FDA approved it as an over-the-counter drug for women over the age of 18, while requiring a prescription for minors. The FDA subsequently allowed 17-year-olds to obtain the drug without a prescription.

In 2011, the administration backed an HHS decision, overruling the FDA, to not allow women under the age of 17 to obtain emergency contraceptives without a prescription.

Korman's decision demands that the FDA make the drug available with no restrictions within 30 days. The judge specifically ruled out the agency using the rulemaking process to slow the ruling, saying that it had already engaged in "intolerable delays" in responding to the Citizen Petition asking for the drug to be made available over the counter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/morning-after-pill_n_3019579.html
 
This is great news, Obama's HHS department pulled this chickenshit stuff after a couple of old white men waived their poutrage flags at them.

Morning-After Pill Ordered To Be Available For All Ages Over The Counter By Judge


A federal judge ruled Friday that the morning-after pill, known by its brand name of Plan B, should be available without a prescription or any age or point-of-sale restrictions within 30 days. The ruling is in opposition to a previous decision by the Obama administration.

Judge Edward R. Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled in Tummino v. Hamburg, reversing a prior decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS).

Plan B (Levonorgestrel) is an emergency contraception to be taken within 72 hours after unprotected intercourse to prevent pregnancy. In 1999, it became the first emergency contraceptive approved for use by prescription. In 2006, the FDA approved it as an over-the-counter drug for women over the age of 18, while requiring a prescription for minors. The FDA subsequently allowed 17-year-olds to obtain the drug without a prescription.

In 2011, the administration backed an HHS decision, overruling the FDA, to not allow women under the age of 17 to obtain emergency contraceptives without a prescription.

Korman's decision demands that the FDA make the drug available with no restrictions within 30 days. The judge specifically ruled out the agency using the rulemaking process to slow the ruling, saying that it had already engaged in "intolerable delays" in responding to the Citizen Petition asking for the drug to be made available over the counter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/morning-after-pill_n_3019579.html

Another win for Justice and the rule of law.
 
playing devils advocate here, but aren't you liberals really REALLY big on this 'FDA is all about protecting us' thing? or are you finally ready to admit that 'we the people' know better than the government?
 
playing devils advocate here, but aren't you liberals really REALLY big on this 'FDA is all about protecting us' thing? or are you finally ready to admit that 'we the people' know better than the government?

The FDA approved this for sale to minors, and was overruled in a political decision.
 
which really doesn't change my question.

Yeah it does. The FDA's job is to protect consumers from things that will kill them, oftimes, from products the manufacturers know are harmful. Politics does not belong at the FDA, and they should never be overturned on political grounds.

And no, we the people do not "know better" about which medicines are harmful. You're not getting rid of the FDA, forget that pipenightmare.
 
Yeah it does. The FDA's job is to protect consumers from things that will kill them, oftimes, from products the manufacturers know are harmful. Politics does not belong at the FDA, and they should never be overturned on political grounds.

And no, we the people do not "know better" about which medicines are harmful. You're not getting rid of the FDA, forget that pipenightmare.
so 'we the people' don't know better than the government? did we create the government or did they create us?
 
The FDA approved this for sale to minors, and was overruled in a political decision.

Because minors should not be having sex, great job now they are being encouraged once more to engage in unprotected pre marital sex, you people are absolute idiots.
 
You go to some pretty wild extremes. One bad decision does not = certainty of 100% bad decision-making.

You tend to do that w/ cops, as well.
why is it extreme to hold the whole entity accountable? most anti gunners do that with gun owners. most liberals do that with white conservatives. most conservatives do that with liberals. why is it that you are quite willing to label a whole group of non government people as 'category A', but it's only a few bad apples when it comes to government? do you really worship the government that much?
 
so 'we the people' don't know better than the government? did we create the government or did they create us?
"We The People" elect "Representatives" who appoint "Professionals" cause people you like you and I don't know shit about pharmacology. So if "We The People" were smarter than government, we wouldn't need government. Are you another conservative or libertarian advocating anarchy?
 
why is it extreme to hold the whole entity accountable? most anti gunners do that with gun owners. most liberals do that with white conservatives. most conservatives do that with liberals. why is it that you are quite willing to label a whole group of non government people as 'category A', but it's only a few bad apples when it comes to government? do you really worship the government that much?

Well, for starters, there is a huge difference between holding an entity accountable, and discrediting that entity's effectiveness based on a single decision.

If you need me to explain that further, please let me know.
 
"We The People" elect "Representatives" who appoint "Professionals" cause people you like you and I don't know shit about pharmacology. So if "We The People" were smarter than government, we wouldn't need government. Are you another conservative or libertarian advocating anarchy?
good god, why do you fucktards continually equate personal liberty and responsibility with anarchy? does being free terrify you that badly?
 
"We The People" elect "Representatives" who appoint "Professionals" cause people you like you and I don't know shit about pharmacology. So if "We The People" were smarter than government, we wouldn't need government. Are you another conservative or libertarian advocating anarchy?

Thank you for stating it so well.
 
Well, for starters, there is a huge difference between holding an entity accountable, and discrediting that entity's effectiveness based on a single decision.

If you need me to explain that further, please let me know.
yeah, explain further because i'm having a hard time discerning the difference when a city attorney defends the actions of one or a few, the city council defends the actions of one or a few, the police union defends the actions of one or a few, and every one of the 'only ones' defends the one during the commission of said criminal activity. how is it that if a single cop is beating an arrestee that hasn't resisted is not arrested by his fellow officers? is that not the whole entity acting as one? and does that then mean that .001% of gun owners using guns to commit crimes make it an indictment on every gun owner? where is that difference?
 
Back
Top