NYT Pits 'Conservatives' vs. 'Women's Rights Communities' on the Morning-After Pill
The Obama administration blocked over-the-counter sales of Plan B One-Step, the “morning-after” pill, to girls under 17, and New York Times reporters Jackie Calmes (pictured) and Gardiner Harris sniffed out a political move to assuage “conservatives" in Friday’s “Obama Backs Aide’s Stance on Morning-After Pill.”
While the Times mentioned “conservatives” four times in discussing the surprise decision by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary for Health and Human Services, there were zero “liberals” labeled in opposition, merely “women’s rights” groups -- as if all women would favor the sale. And while "anti-abortion groups" were identified, there were no "pro-abortion" or even "pro-choice" groups on the other side, merely harmless "reproductive rights groups."
President Obama, who took office pledging to put science ahead of politics, averted a skirmish with conservatives in the nation’s culture wars on Thursday by endorsing his health secretary’s decision to block over-the-counter sales of an after-sex contraceptive pill to girls under age 17.
The administration action inevitably raised questions about whether politics was trump in this instance -- especially from disappointed supporters in the scientific and women’s rights communities. Mr. Obama, who had criticized how his predecessor made decisions on issues like contraceptives, sought to dispel that idea in remarks to White House reporters.
“I did not get involved in the process,” he quickly asserted.
Mr. Obama said the decision was made by his secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius. On Wednesday, in a rare move, she overruled the Food and Drug Administration, which had recommended that the morning-after pill Plan B One-Step is safe and should be sold without a prescription to people under 17, just as it is now to those who are 17 and older.
....
The president’s remarks suggested social and cultural concerns even as he said Ms. Sebelius had acted out of scientific concerns; in particular, she cited the manufacturer’s failure to study whether girls as young as 11 could safely use the drug. And the issue has been a matter of political contention, with conservative and anti-abortion groups opposed and public health and women’s rights groups in favor.
Yet the response of those disappointed by the administration’s decision was more muted than in many such controversies, reflecting a broad sense that this was not a fight to pick with Republicans and conservative groups. On Capitol Hill, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader and a stalwart of reproductive rights groups, neither endorsed nor criticized the decision, deferring to Ms. Sebelius even as she praised the F.D.A. commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Well, there's no way
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 3:03pm.
HHS threw a bone to Conservatives; that's just not in the cards. I think what they did do was eliminate the likely "Obama supports abortion pills in school lunches" campaign ads. This is just another of the long list of items that needs further study; studies that oddly conclude on or about January 22, 2012.
What's going on here?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 4:13pm.
Is there some sort of concerted effort to proclaim rights where there are none while at the same time continue to destroy what rights we really do have?
I mean, for pete's sake, all these people coming out with "right to roof over your head" and "right to have pills"(of any kind) and "right to whatever I want"(ok, the last is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's getting there), someone's got to be pushing this.
Kinda reminds me of how O'Bambi is trying to destroy our Bill of Rights while trying to create one fitting for marxists.
-Jon
Rape
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 7:55pm.
Do any of the idiots realize that they are proclaiming their belief that UNDERAGE girls should quietly accept STATUATORY RAPE as normal?
They were okay with Clinton
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 7:59pm.
They were okay with Clinton raping Juanita Broderick, and Roman Pulanski raping an underage girl so, its no surprise.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Who is "they", Free...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 8:20pm.
I don't know anyone "okay" with rape.
It seems to be a "defending Herman Cain means you're okay with adultery" argument.
Jer
But apparently if it is qualified, as in---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:01pm.
"It wasn't RAPE rape---"
MD
I must have missed NOW and
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 10:26pm.
I must have missed NOW and the females on The View denouncing Clinton & Panski.
I'll denounce Cain when they bring forward a witness who has some actual evidence. Tweets? Let's see them! What? She was convicted of Libel in the past? Hmmmmmnnnn . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I must have missed NOW and
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 12/09/2011 - 10:27pm.
I must have missed NOW and the females on The View denouncing Clinton & Pulanski.
I'll denounce Cain when they bring forward a witness who has some actual evidence. Tweets? Let's see them! What? She was convicted of Libel in the past? Hmmmmmnnnn . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال