The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius is totally head over heels in love with abortion and contraception. That’s why this move from her overruling the Federal Drug Administration’s decision to make the Plan B abortifacient available to children without a prescription leaves me confused.
Happy. But confused. Remember, this is the woman who declared “war” on pro-lifers.
To make it clear, the FDA said they were cool with eliminating the age requirement of 17 years of age for obtaining the morning after pill over the counter. So the libs had won that battle. But then out of the blue, Sebelius overruled them questioning the “label comprehension” of some younger girls.
Wow. I’m stunned but sadly I can’t even say I’m grateful because when those who have made it their mission for years to put their thumb in your eye come to give you a hug, you don’t completely trust it. Maybe I’m cynical but this actually makes me nervous.
This makes me wonder if the hammer’s going to drop and HHS is going to move forward with the contraceptive mandate that forces most insurance companies to cover contraceptives (including abortifacients) free of charge. This, of course, would force Catholic institutions who provide insurance to employees to pay for abortifacients and would be a real blow to religious liberty in this country.
Because here’s the thing. I don’t think this FDA overruling thing was done for the reasons she stated. Because if she believed that, I don’t see how she could be against parental notification for abortion. No. The reason is political. There’s no way Sebelius acted alone on this. The Obama administration just handed pro-lifers a win. For no reason. Sure it’s an election year but with all the other stuff going on no serious pro-lifer will say sure they’re funding Planned Parenthood with my money, sure they’re going to directly fund abortions overseas, and yeah Obamacare will pay for abortions but hey they did overrule the FDA on that Plan B so darnit they’ve earned my pro-life vote. No.
There’s an angle here. I’m not seeing it. But there’s an angle here. I don’t know what it is. But I do know I’m not going to like it.
Ht Jill Stanek
December 8, 2011 at 5:07 am
How about more pregnant teens because they couldn't access this poison easily, means more abortions to be performed by her darling Planned Parenthood and receiving our money to do it. Cynical, I know, but hard not to be.
December 8, 2011 at 5:16 am
My personal hypothesis is that it is risk-aversion (the modus operandi of government bureaucracies). If something goes wrong (besides the murder of a child) because of the abuse* of the drug, there are more far-reaching consequences for her and her department, than if they block the access to it.
* I use this term since this drug has no morally licit use that I am aware of, so I include labeled use and what others would call 'abuse' as well.
December 8, 2011 at 5:37 am
It's possible that she was asked to do this to head off "bad optics" before the election. This could have galvanized marginal pro-lifers, and now she's given them a pat on the head and reason to say, "eh, I guess they reall *are* moderates!".
She can always rescind this after the election, right?
December 8, 2011 at 10:14 am
@Anonymous 1: I'm pretty sure even Kathleen Sebelius wants abortion rates to go down, for political reasons if nothing else. She won't stop bragging about how they went down when she was governor of KS…fact is, most people don't like abortion, even if they think it should be legal, so if politicians can make these numbers go down (even by immoral means) then it's all the better for them.
@Zapman: I see that motivation as equally unlikely, since if HHS had stood by and it turned out that the FDA was wrong and the drug is dangerous for young adolescents, nobody would've blamed HHS, just the FDA itself. Rather, she's putting her own neck out there by intervening in the situation.
December 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I think Obama is more beholden to Planned Parenthood than he is to Big Pharma. It's better for business if young girls have their babies ripped out of them at a PP clinic rather than abort at home.
December 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Anonymous 1 has it spot on: It's nothing but a blatant political maneuver to appear more pro-life while at the same time to appear pro-choice. The President can then spin whichever side of the argument he wants at any point in his re-election bid. This maneuver facilitates what's called "pivoting" on an issue.
December 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Maybe she's just waiting to produce a Barney video that will be attached to the pills, so there's no confusion about how children should use them.
December 8, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Election year strategy seems likely
December 8, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I think it was a red herring from the get-go. Making the administration look reasonable, when they had no intention of actually enacting this travesty. Just for political points with the easily duped.
December 8, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Yup, politics simple; same as the EPA's announcement that they would NOT be regulating 'farm dust.'
If and when Obama gets re-elected, all those things will be back on the table, immediately.
December 8, 2011 at 11:54 pm
So let me see if I have this correct, its better for an underage girl who gets pregnant to not take care of her self, rob an unborn child of a healthy start and then adopt it out to someone who is completely unaware of the lack of proper nut. Medical treatment and the possibility of stress from a stressed home life due to her situation then her having the right to make a choice without her mom and dad giving her permission? You can have all your own beliefs and make your own choices, but what gives someone the right to decide what someone else can do? I don't want to have ab abortion but I'm not god and can not tell someone what they can and can not do. What gives you the right to?
December 9, 2011 at 1:02 am
"So let me see if I have this correct, its better for an underage girl who gets pregnant to not take care of her self, rob an unborn child of a healthy start and then adopt it out to someone who is completely unaware of the lack of proper nut."
Hmmm, Anonymous. My paternal grandmother gave birth to her first child at age 15. When she gave birth to my Dad he was born physically disabled. On my mother's side of the family, her Mom was underage, abandoned by the man who had impregnated her. She went out to work for a living to support my Mom and herself, while my Mom was raised by her maternal grandmother. Being the product of a very loving marriage between my Mom and Dad, which only ended with my mother's death, I am quite glad that there were not people around my grandmothers like you, dreaming up excuses as to how they would be better off by killing the children within their wombs.
December 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
@Anonymous (and anencephalous), what gives someone the right to decide that they can kill a child?
Leaving to one side that under common law (what we have here in the US), you only have the right to use things properly, not improperly (we have no jus utendi et abutendi, that's civil law), your rights unquestionably cease where someone else's begin.
Do you deny that there is an inherent right to live? I imagine not. Well all rights that are inherent to members of a class, must be inherent to all its members. Otherwise they are not really rights in the moral sense, but privileges.
Is living a privilege?
Well we can prove that an individual of the species Homo sapiens exists from the moment of conception—all biology defines that as the beginning of individual existence. And since it is an individual, of that species, it has the same rights as all other humans: including the right not to be killed.
Here's a hint, you brainless ninny: if you're going to come in here and defend abortion, don't do it all self-righteous, in terms of "what gives you the right to decide". We're not impressed by your ritual invocations of individualism, and the fact remains that you're the one who's trying to infringe on someone's real rights. I'm not a patient man at the best of times, but you come here with that stinking hypocrisy—coupled with the flagrant discourtesy of commenting anonymously—and I'm just not gonna be very pleasant.
How unpleasant? This unpleasant. "Just because you're so tired of the concept of universal human worth being used as an argument against abortion, is no reason to become a counterexample to the concept."
Ass.
December 9, 2011 at 11:56 pm
So with this promulgation an 11 year old girl will not be able to drive herself to Walgreens and put down $50. to erase a roll in the hay. Is this drug only available to females or can men also purchase it to erase their roll in the hay? Is it illegal for the same male to give it unbeknownst to the female roller?
December 11, 2011 at 11:55 am
@Sophia's Favorite – I think you might need to save some of the specialized terminology for the debate within your field – 🙂 Let's keep the response simple… Hey anonymous – Is adoption not an option? Last I checked there were more parents willing to adopt then adoptees. So a young woman who CHOOSES to engage in pre-marital sex can't CHOOSE to give her child up for adoption?
Love,
Another Anonymous
December 11, 2011 at 11:57 am
Oh look at that… I bungled it… that's hilarious… after my rebuke to Sophia's favorite, I use "then" rather than "than". Nice.