FDA Sued For Politicizing Women’s Health

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Here’s a new one: The Family Research Council is accusing the FDA of “politicizing women’s health.” Because before Plan B came around a woman’s body was her own business? Right.

Yesterday a coalition of groups including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its decision to approve the nonprescription sales of Plan B, Barr Laboratories’ emergency contraceptive. Among its litany of complaints, the lawsuit accuses the FDA of violating the law by allowing the same drug to be distributed simultaneously by prescription and over the counter (uh, what about that “all-day non-drowsy relief“?), and it also names names, charging that the decision was made after “improper pressure” from Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Patty Murray.

“There are a lot of concerns,” a spokesperson for the FRC told the Washington Times. This despite the fact that Barr has taken unprecedented steps to ensure the drug does not get into the hands of those under 18 and the uninformed. The company has agreed to send “anonymous shoppers” into pharmacies to test compliance with the age restriction, to distribute with the drug a booklet about its proper use, and to exclude gas stations and convenience stores from selling Plan B at all.

The improper pressure mentioned in the suit refers to Clinton and Murray putting a hold on the confirmation of current commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach until the FDA acted on the recommendation to approve OTC status. FRC said the decision to approve Barr’s application is “very clearly caught up in political dynamics, and I would go so far as to say there is electoral politics involved here.” Susan Wood, former director of FDA’s Office of Women’s Health, points out that the senators simply urged the agency to make a decision one way or the other, after months of stalling, and “didn’t say what the decision should be.”

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate