New York Times Editorial: Broader Access to Morning-After Pills

New York Times Editorial: Broader Access to Morning-After Pills
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: March 24, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25wed2.html?ref=opinion


A federal judge in New York has added his weight to contentions that the Bush administration delayed easy, nonprescription access to the morning-after pill for political and ideological reasons, not from a desire to protect the public’s health. Judge Edward R. Korman wisely ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make the pill available without prescription to women as young as 17 and to consider approving it for girls of any age, as major medical groups have long advocated.

The morning-after pill, actually two pills taken in sequence, can block a pregnancy if taken soon after intercourse. It works best if taken within 24 hours but is effective up to 72 hours after intercourse. Prompt access is imperative; any delay in reaching a doctor to get a prescription can render the drug useless.

Judge Korman lays out in detail the continuous efforts by the Bush administration to prevent easy access to the pill by requiring a prescription, contrary to prevailing medical opinion. The World Health Organization and a slew of American health groups had urged that the pill be made available without prescription and without age restrictions, and virtually all major industrialized nations did so years ago. The drug has no serious long-term side effects, just mild short-term effects like nausea or abdominal pain in some users. The health benefits of preventing unplanned pregnancies or abortions far outweigh any likely downside.

Yet the Bush administration, through the Food and Drug Administration, found excuse after excuse for delaying a decision and narrowing its ultimate scope, presumably to placate Mr. Bush’s base of social and religious conservatives. At various stages, the agency’s leadership, sometimes after consulting the White House, dictated decisions that ran counter to what its scientists and advisory groups were recommending. It was only after the Senate threatened to hold up confirmation of a new F.D.A. commissioner in 2006 that the agency finally approved sales without prescription to women 18 and over, provided the drugs were kept behind the counter.

We called that decision “an acceptable compromise” because it finally made the drug more accessible. But Judge Korman notes that there is “overwhelming evidence” in F.D.A. files that 17-year-olds can use the drug safely without medical supervision.

The harder question is whether to remove all age and other restrictions, potentially allowing children as young as 11 or 12 to take the drug without medical supervision. The judge sensibly left that issue to the F.D.A., which can presumably be trusted to make a fair assessment now that it will be under new leadership.