TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Fundies delay approval of morning after pill that could cut unwanted pregnancy by 1/2
Fundies delay approval of morning after pill that could cut unwanted pregnancy by 1/2
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....33§ion=news
| quote: |
Doctors See Politics in Morning-After Pill Delay by Lisa Richwine WASHINGTON - Political objections to wider access for a "morning-after pill" may result in restrictions that intimidate women from using the emergency contraceptive, according to an editorial published on Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The Food and Drug Administration in February announced it was postponing a decision on Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s request to sell the contraceptive, called Plan B, over the counter. A ruling now is expected by May 21. Plan B can prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse. Opponents of a switch, including several Republican lawmakers, argue easy access to the product may increase sexual promiscuity, particularly among teen-agers. An FDA advisory panel of outside experts voted 23-4 last December to recommend making Plan B available without a prescription. The agency's delay in making a final ruling "suggests that the FDA's decision-making process is being influenced by political considerations," said the editorial, written by the journal's editor, Jeffrey Drazen, and two members of the FDA advisory panel. "The current delay ... may be followed by approval with restrictions on its over-the-counter sale that are designed to intimidate women who require access to this medication," the editorial said. Limits that have been suggested include a minimum age requirement for purchasers, or putting the medicine "behind the counter" and making women ask a pharmacist for it. "A treatment for any other condition, from hangnail to headache to heart disease, with a similar record of safety and efficacy would be approved quickly," the editorial said. An FDA spokesman was not immediately available for comment. FDA officials in the past have insisted the decision will be based on science and not politics. "There are ongoing discussions on many topics" with the FDA regarding Plan B, Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox said. She declined to provide specifics. Plan B prevent pregnancy using higher doses of progestin, one of the hormones used in birth control bills. Shares of Barr fell 79 cents, or 1.63 percent, to close at $47.60 on the New York Stock Exchange. � Copyright Reuters Ltd2004. |
Re: Fundies delay approval of morning after pill that could cut unwanted pregnancy by 1/2
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....33§ion=news Yeopus, spot on man. |
Re: Re: Fundies delay approval of morning after pill that could cut unwanted pregnanc
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Bah French bashing is all I got |
The corporate interests that really run Washington have learned to manipulate the Fundie GOP base to get what they want:
| quote: |
POLITICAL CAPITAL: Drug-Importation Vote Is Cue For Industry to Change Its Ways By Alan Murray The Wall Street Journal July 29, 2003 WASHINGTON -- Pharmaceuticals companies may succeed in stopping or watering down the drug-importation bill that passed the House last week. But they can't escape the consequences of that stunning 243-186 vote. House Republicans have always been the industry's strongest and surest bastion of support -- a relationship fertilized with countless dollars of campaign cash. But in the early hours of Friday morning, 87 Republicans jumped ship, defying an all-out industry lobbying campaign. The message should be clear: The industry needs to change its ways. If it doesn't, it is likely to face ruinous price controls. It's ironic that an industry that does so much good has developed a public image that is so unrelentingly bad. Prescription drugs save lives. They control our allergies, lower our cholesterol and counter our depressions -- as well as fatten our 401(k)s. It's hard to think of any other industry that does nearly as much to improve the quality of American life. Yet in the political debate, the drug companies occupy a spot once reserved for tobacco purveyors. Members of both parties talked openly Friday about how satisfying it was to defeat them. "The House was in its finest moment last night," said an exhausted but ebullient Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, the Missouri Republican who forced her own party's leadership to allow the vote. The size of that victory was partly a backlash against the industry's heavy-handed lobbying tactics. The most outrageous example was the use of the Rev. Lou Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition -- derisively referred to by some on Capitol Hill as "Rent-a-God" -- to spread the argument that the bill would encourage importation of the RU 486 abortion pill. Materials distributed by the coalition, it turns out, actually were written by staffers at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry lobbying group. A PhRMA spokesman refused to comment on whether the lobby made a financial contribution to Rev. Sheldon's coalition in return. This is standard practice for PhRMA. In recent elections, it has used euphemistically named organizations like "Citizens for Better Medicare" and "United Seniors" to launder its message. Little wonder people ask: What are these guys trying to hide? But the problem isn't just a bankrupt public-relations and lobbying strategy. It is also a pricing strategy that's no longer supportable. How do you explain to an American breast-cancer patient, Ms. Emerson asked, that a drug that costs $360 at the pharmacy on Capitol Hill costs only $60 in Munich, Germany? The industry's answer is that Germany has price controls, while Americans are charged a "market price." But truth is, there is no "market price" for prescription drugs. Like many products in the modern economy, breakthrough prescription drugs cost a lot to develop but very little to manufacture. True market competition -- and true market prices -- would destroy the industry by driving down prices and eliminating any incentive for costly research and development. So companies charge as much as the market will bear while their patent monopoly lasts -- and a market fueled by sick, often desperate consumers will bear a lot. Price controls overseas -- backed by an implicit threat that the countries won't honor American patents if they don't get good prices -- force the drug companies to recoup most of their research costs here in the U.S. And even here, prices vary enormously. Large employers and health-maintenance organizations bargain down prices for their beneficiaries, leaving senior citizens who shop at the drugstore to pay twice as much. In short, elderly Americans are the suckers in a game of shifting costs. And Friday's House vote is a clear sign that they aren't going to take it anymore. The pharmaceuticals industry has belatedly joined the effort to get seniors a prescription-drug benefit through Medicare, in hopes of easing their concerns about drug prices. But that won't end the industry's problems. For one thing, the benefit now being considered in Congress is a modest one, still leaving enrollees to pay most of the cost of their drugs. For another, taxpayers are no more willing to play patsy in this game than the seniors are. In spite of anti-price-control language that drug companies are having their friends in Congress jam into the Medicare bill, price controls could well result. So what should the industry do? Well, first, it needs to rethink its business model. That's hard to contemplate at a time when it enjoys huge profits, but it's essential for long-term survival. Price discrimination for prescription drugs may be a good idea, particularly if it benefits the neediest. But giving affluent Canadians and Europeans a better deal than Americans, whose tax dollars defray the costs of drug development here in the U.S., no longer will cut it. Second, the industry needs to stop hiding behind cheap front groups and start telling its story straight. Americans have a vital interest in supporting a vibrant prescription-drug industry. And if the drug companies treat them fairly and honestly, they will. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.