There are so many euphemisms in this story that I hardly know where to begin.
A District Court judge ordered the FDA to "reconsider" its restrictions on sale of the abortificient called Plan B, and ordered it to allow sales to 17-year-olds without prescription. "Reconsider?" "You will decide what we tell you."
FDA officials in 2006 allowed easier, "behind-the-counter" sales to those age 18 and older who show proof of age while still requiring a prescription for women 17 and younger. Its maker, Barr Pharmaceuticals, had originally sought over-the-counter access without any age requirements.
In other words the product was available, and the action of the judge is to demand that girls get non-prescription access to an extra-strength version of a drug for which women need a prescription to get in normal doses. That doesn't make much medical sense. And Barr's initial request is horrifyingly cavalier about the mother's health--but given that the idea is to kill the baby I suppose you have to expect a certain coarsening of ethics from them.
This is all in the name of "science."
The incoming leadership of FDA ... are committed to making sure that FDA gets back on track. I think that leadership will really make sure that the agency is making its decisions that are based on science," Wood, now a research professor at George Washington University, told reporters.
"Science?" That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Questions about the utility of drugs or the morality of actions are not science questions. Some are economic questions, some involve risk trade-offs, and some, such as this, have moral problems associated with them.
I suppose I should be glad that they still feel the need to lie about what they're doing.