Plan B: The Debate between Science and Politics

Plan B: The Debate between Science and Politics
 Katie McCabe

The oral-contraceptive, Plan B, was recently confirmed safe for a woman under the age of 18 to buy and consume as deemed by the FDA. However, the Health and Human Service Secretary as appointed by the Obama administration, decided to overrule the FDA’s decision. As a direct result, the government’s decision to prevent the distribution of Plan B conflicts with the progress and development of scientific research. Two articles recently published discuss the political, scientific, and social benefits of such a decision.

The recent editorial by the publication, Nature, titled “The Morning After” publicly criticized Obama’s support of the government’s decision to refuse women under the age of 18 to buy the over-the-counter contraceptive Plan B. The decision of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to overrule the FDA’s decision was one fueled by political interests rather than scientific evidence.The article continued to state that this decision directly contradicts Obama’s earlier promise to allow scientists certain freedoms without government interference.


Obama’s personal statement concerning the decision of Plan B included, “one could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.”

Yet, the author of “The Morning After” argues that these personal statements are based on false facts. The reality is that Plan B is actually located behind the pharmacy counter. It is almost impossible to consume incorrectly, considering there is only one pill to swallow.
Plan B offers a practical and safe solution to young women, one that was deemed safe by the FDA for all women even those under the age of 18.

However, another article entitled, “Science, Politics, and Over-the-Counter Emergency Contraceptive” supports Obama’s stance, while arguing that women under the age of 18 would not be able to properly and correctly take the pill. The author argued that a pill that includes many unintended side effects such as nausea and menstrual disruption should not be sold to women under the age of 18. The availability of such a pill may cause teenagers to think less about the consequences of sexual intercourse before engaging.


Both articles examine the scientific, political, and social aspects of the government’s decision. However, a decision based on political interests rather than scientific information would prohibit the advancement of science, an advancement that would provide beneficial options and possibilities for a young woman. As a direct result, the government’s decision to prevent the distribution of Plan B conflicts with the progress and development of scientific research.






Works Cited

Steinbrook, Robert. "Science, Politics, and Over-the-Counter Emergency Contraception." Journal of the American Medical Association. 19 Dec 2011: n. page. Print. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/early/2011/12/16/jama.2011.1957.full.


 "The Morning After." Nature. 480. (2011): n. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/480413a.html>.