Plan B isn't 'preventive medicine,' says Christian physician

A spokesman for the Christian Medical & Dental Associations explains why he has always opposed efforts to lower the availability age for Plan B, saying "morning-after" planning is in fact no planning at all.
 
The Justice Department announced Thursday it will fight against the availability of Plan B - the "morning-after" pill - for minors. Last month, New York federal judge Edward Korman ordered the Food and Drug Administration to permit over-the-counter sales of the drug to minors; and two days before the order was effective, FDA issued a rule permitting sale of Plan B to 15-year-olds and up.

Now, in the appeal filed on Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney General's office will argue Judge Korman does not have the authority to order the drug's availability to minors. That move has apparently angered some White House allies - including Planned Parenthood, whose president stated later that "age barriers" to emergency contraception like Plan B "are not supported by science and ... should be eliminated."

Adds Los Angeles Times' political reporter Robin Abcarian: "Planned Parenthood is probably getting used to this shabby treatment from a president who loves them to their face but dallies with the right behind their backs."

Dr. Andre Van Mol of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations was opposed to the lowering of the age to begin with.

"It's another example of proposing technological fixes to moral issues - and as a result, opening up a whole new can of worms," he tells American Family Association. "You can't out-technology sin and its consequences. It always leads to other problems."

Van Mol, who also is affiliated with the sexual purity group known as Moral Revolution, believes making the abortifacient available without a prescription would "increase sexually transmitted infections as well as unplanned pregnancies, actually rising further than the problematic levels we already have."

"It's motivating people to think later rather than earlier. Morning-after planning is no planning whatsoever," he states bluntly. "This is not preventive medicine; and when you're talking about 15-year-olds - obviously an adolescent mentality - the problem's going to be even worse."

Thursday in Mexico, President Obama defended his administration's decision to appeal Korman's ruling, saying he was "very comfortable" with the FDA's current rule. "It's not my decision to make," he added. "The first time around, where there were no age restrictions, [HHS] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius expressed concerns and I supported those concerns and I gave voice to them."

Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council spoke to American Family News about the president's statement last night in support of the FDA's decision.

"I think it shows that he is backing off of his original statement - which showed a lot of common sense - in which he said that it's not smart or medically safe for a child to have access to a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect," she offers.

"I mean he echoed Sebelius's concerns in 2011," notes Higgins. "It seems like he's kind of turning on those concerns in face of political pressure."