No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Administrative Law v. Constitutional Law: The Correct Decision on FDA’s Treatment of Plan B
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
In order for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to receive the trust and deference it needs to accomplish its mission, it must be seen as relatively impervious to political manipulation. For most of the FDA’s history, it has been seen as an institution driven by scientific expertise, not by political maneuvering. However, the FDA was increasingly criticized during the Bush administration for politicizing decisions such as rejecting an application to grant the “morning after pill,” known as Plan B, over-the-counter (OTC) status for women of all ages. After an atypical approval process, the FDA approved OTC Plan B use only for women over the age of 18. Because some groups perceive the morning after pill as a form of abortion, the politically appointed leadership of the FDA was suspected of dramatically departing from normal FDA procedures in order to ensure that the application would not be approved.
- Type
- Recent Developments in Health Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009
References
See O'Reilly, J. T., “Losing Deference in the FDA's Second Century: Judicial Review, Politics and a Diminished Legacy of Expertise”, Cornell Law Review 93, no. 5 (2008): 939–979.Google Scholar
For example, the Catholic Church considers Emergency Contraception problematic. See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th ed., 2001.Google Scholar
Tummino v. Torti, No. 05-CV-366 (F.Supp.2d Mar 23, 2009).Google Scholar
See Chevalier, B., “The Constitutionality of the FDA's Age-Based Plan B Regulations: Why the FDA Made the Wrong Decision”, Wisconsin Women's Law Journal 22, no. 2 (2007): 235–266 (arguing that the FDA's restriction of access to Plan B represents a burden on the right to privacy and should have to pass strict scrutiny); Metzger, G. E., “Abortion, Equality, and Administrative Regulation”, Emory Law Journal 56, no. 4 (2007): 865-906 (placing the FDA's treatment of Plan B within the abortion jurisprudence); M. Slacketka, “Getting to Plan B: A History of Contraceptive Rights in the United States and an Argument for a Private Right of Action against the FDA”, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 16, no. 3 (2007): 345-377 (arguing that the FDA has violated the right to privacy).Google Scholar
See Tummino, supra note 4, at 1.Google Scholar
Associated Press, “Sales Soaring for Morning After Pill, But Opposition Persists”, Foxnews.com, August 23, 2007.Google Scholar
See Tummino, supra note 4, at 4.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, available at <http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/D0CKETS/ac/03/briefing/4015b1.htm> (last visited July 2, 2009).+(last+visited+July+2,+2009).>Google Scholar
CenterWatch, , “Drugs Approved by the FDA”, available at <http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/dru476.html> (last visited July 2, 2009).+(last+visited+July+2,+2009).>Google Scholar
See supra note 12.Google Scholar
See Tummino, supra note 4, at 7.Google Scholar
Id., at 9.Google Scholar
Id., at 9.Google Scholar
Id., at 13.Google Scholar
Id., at 15.Google Scholar
Id., at 14.Google Scholar
Id., at 17.Google Scholar
Id., at 17.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Food and Drug Administration: Decision Process to Deny Initial Over-the-Counter Marketing of the Emergency Contraceptive Drug Plan B Was Unusual 7, 2005, available at <http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20051116110800-24167.pdf> (last visited July 2, 2009) [hereinafter GAO Report].+(last+visited+July+2,+2009)+[hereinafter+GAO+Report].>Google Scholar
Id., at 5.Google Scholar
See Tummino, supra note 4, at 30.Google Scholar
Id., at 29.Google Scholar
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).Google Scholar
See Tummino, supra note 4, at 22, quoting Latecoere Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. Of Navy, 19 F.3d 1342, 1356 (11th Cir. 1994); see also James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (bad faith is “material to determining whether the Government acted arbitrarily”).Google Scholar
Id., at 29; see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 346 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
See Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965); see also Carey v. Population Serv. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977) (discussing the importance of Griswold in the development of the right to decide to procreate or not).Google Scholar
See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).Google Scholar
See Carey, 431 U.S. at 686; see also Harper, S., “The Morning After? How Far Can States Go to Restrict Access to Emergency Contraception?” Columbia Human Rights Law Review 38, no. 1 (2006): 221–262, at 248.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C., “Neutrality in Constitutional Law (with Special Reference to Pornography, Abortion and Surrogacy)”, Columbia Law Review 92, no. 1 (1992): 1–51, at 32-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See O'Reilly, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
§353(b)(1)(A).Google Scholar
See Tummino, supra note 4, at 5.Google Scholar