Senate Democrats seek justification for Plan B decision

Thirteen Democrats and one independent expressed disappointment in Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' decision to block younger teenagers from buying the "Plan B" emergency contraceptive without a prescription. Meanwhile, a federal judge says he will review the decision.

The Seattle Times: Murray, Cantwell Seeks "Scientific Rationale" For Blocking Plan B
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and a dozen other Senate Democrats are asking the Obama administration to produce scientific justification for its decision last week to block girls 16 and younger from buying the emergency contraceptive Plan B over the counter. In a letter to U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, the 14 lawmakers said they are seeking"medical and scientific evidence" behind Sebelius's unprecedented decision to overrule the Food and Drug Administration and block younger teenagers from buying the so-called "morning after pill" without a prescription. Yet as Sebelius herself has noted, science had nothing to do with it (Song, 12/13).

CQ HealthBeat: Democratic Senators Want Sebelius To Justify Plan B Decision
The 13 Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont said they were disappointed that Sebelius overruled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week to keep the restrictions on Plan B. Women's health advocates have suggested that the decision was politically motivated (Ethridge, 12/13).

Bloomberg: FDA Won't Be Held In Contempt Over Plan B Order, Judge Rules
A federal judge said that he won't hold the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in contempt for ignoring his 2 1/2-year-old order concerning emergency contraceptive Plan B and that he will review an agency ruling on the drug. In 2009, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in Brooklyn, New York, told the FDA to reconsider whether Plan B and related generic drugs should be available without a prescription to girls under age 17. The FDA issued its ruling against such a change yesterday after today's hearing on a contempt motion was already scheduled (Weidlich, 12/13).