In 2003, scientific advisors recommended to the FDA that Plan B, the emergency oral contraceptive (“morning-after”) pill approved for use in the U.S. since 1999, be made available to women over 17 without a prescription but because of political pressure from the right, it took 3 years before that recommendation was actualized – and then only for women over 18.

The Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA claiming the agency didn’t follow procedure as well as violated women’s rights to equal protection while the FDA claimed that those selling Plan B wouldn’t be able to adequately prove  whether a woman was 17 or 18 (!). On March 23, the court ruled in  CRR’s favor finding the FDA’s argument “untenable” and essentially politically motivated.

But let’s get to the heart of the matter – the moral right would rather have teens run the risk of getting pregnant and bringing unwanted children into the world than have them have access to a drug that PREVENTS conception (Plan B is NOT an abortion pill) and has been shown to have no serious or long-term side effects.

And even if it was, why would anyone force a woman or a teenager into having a child when she doesn’t want one? How does that benefit the woman (whether she’s an adult or teen), the child or society?

Taking the argument one step further, I’ve heard people argue that the morning-after pill could be used repeatedly by a woman, proving somehow that she is both immoral and irresponsible. If that’s the case, why would you want that woman bringing children into the world if she is so irresponsible and immoral? Let her use Plan B - or have an abortion - as often as she wants as far as I’m concerned. That’s better than bringing an unwanted child into the world to be raised by someone who is ill prepared for that role.

The court got it right. When an expert medical panel determines that it is safe to offer the drug as an over-the-counter medication that can safely be taken by teens, it is not up to a government agency to play politics with women’s lives.