Obama ‘Very Comfortable’ With FDA Decision On Plan B

[ProSense]

Obama ‘Very Comfortable’ With FDA Decision On Plan B

President Barack Obama said Thursday that he was "very comfortable" with the the Food and Drug Administration's decision to allow the over-the-counter sale of Plan B, known as the morning-after pill, to females aged 15 and up.

"The rule that's been put forward by the FDA, Secretary Sebelius has reviewed, she's comfortable with it -- I'm comfortable with it," Obama told reporters at a press conference in Mexico, taking questions alongside Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto after a bilateral summit.

"I'm very comfortable with the decision they’ve made right now based on solid, scientific evidence," he added.

The Justice Department announced on Wednesday however that it will challenge a decision by a federal judge to eliminate all age restrictions on over-the-counter sales of morning-after birth control pills -- infuriating women advocates.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-very-comfortable-with-fda-decision-on-plan

From the NYT:

<...>

The Justice Department’s action will not affect that F.D.A. decision. Instead, the department is seeking to overturn a much broader order by the judge that removed restrictions for all ages and for generic versions of the pill, not just Plan B One-Step. The order, issued on April 5 by Judge Korman, gave the F.D.A. 30 days to comply.

<...>

On Wednesday, a Justice Department official said the appeal would concentrate on the two areas where the department believes the judge overstepped his legal authority. The official also said the White House had not been involved in the decision of whether to appeal Judge Korman’s ruling.

“This is a decision that the Justice Department is making in representing our client: F.D.A.,” the official said. “This is not a political decision. It’s not had White House intervention or involvement. This in our judgment is the right legal step to take in this case.”

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/health/us-will-appeal-order-on-morning-after-pill.html?ref=us&_r=0

[still_one]

1. A straight forward answer

[ProSense]

8. Yes. n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

2. If the president is comfortable, why is his justice department appealing the decision?

[ProSense]

3. According to

"If the president is comfortable, why is his justice department appealing the decision?"

...the NYT article in the OP, his "justice department" is representing his FDA:

"This is a decision that the Justice Department is making in representing our client: F.D.A.”

[Gravitycollapse]

4. That's a terrible excuse.

[ProSense]

5. Maybe, but evidently, the FDA decision stands. n/t

[woo me with science]

6. Why does his Justice Department

*go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for warrantless surveillance?

*go all the way to the Supreme Court to argue for strip searches for any arrestee?

*escalate the war on marijuana when candidate Obama promised to do exactly the opposite?

*wage legal battles against union and whistleblowing protections for hundreds of thousands of federal employees?

*refuse to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of banking fraud and corruption, such as HSBC?



This is how Orwellian the propaganda has become. It is now commonplace that we are exhorted to believe that the clear repeated, relentless actions of an administration reveal a President's deeply held convictions in the exact opposite direction.

[ProSense]

7. Because he's "creepy"

"This is how Orwellian the propaganda has become. It is now commonplace that we are exhorted to believe that the clear repeated, relentless actions of an administration reveal a President's deeply held convictions in the exact opposite direction. "

I hope he loses re-election! He's ebil!

[winter is coming]

9. Wow. That thoughtful, measured response really convinced me to take you seriously. n/t

[ProSense]

11. That's OK,

"Wow. That thoughtful, measured response really convinced me to take you seriously."

...today is a day for LMAO: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022788722

[winter is coming]

12. I was already aware of the context of your response.

You want to mock "creepy" in that thread, feel free; it's well-deserved. The point remains that some legitimate points were made about the Justice Department's priorities in this thread and you fluffed it off with a cheap shot.

[ProSense]

13. Well,

"You want to mock "creepy" in that thread, feel free; it's well-deserved. The point remains that some legitimate points were made about the Justice Department's priorities in this thread and you fluffed it off with a cheap shot."

...you better stay away then. This is the kind of response thread-hijacking, anti-Obama/Democratic spam is going to get.

[winter is coming]

15. Let's see...

1. OP is about Obama's reaction to FDA's decision to lower Plan B age to 15.
2. Someone responds by asking, "Then why is the Justice Department appealing the recent ruling?"
3. Someone else responds to that response, opining that the Justice Department has some questionable enforcement priorities, and lists specific examples.

That's not a threadjack, that's a conversation.

on edit: Chris Hayes is doing a good segment right now on 'Crazy Vagina Politics'.

[ProSense]

16. No,

Let's see...

1. OP is about Obama's reaction to FDA's decision to lower Plan B age to 15.
2. Someone responds by asking, "Then why is the Justice Department appealing the recent ruling?"
3. Someone else responds to that response, opining that the Justice Department has some questionable enforcement priorities, and lists specific examples.

That's not a threadjack, that's a conversation.

...I responded to the first question, and the second response is thread-jacking with a bunch of unrelated point.

A conversation would focus on the issue in the OP, which is the FDA decision and appeal. This thread is not about prosecuting bank fraud.

[winter is coming]

17. The point was that Obama's statement and the latest FDA policy in re Plan B

are in conflict with the Justice Department's decision to appeal the recent ruling, and that it's not unusual for the Justice Department to act in ways that seemingly contradict statements made by this administration and positions we might reasonably expect a Democratic leader to hold.

[ProSense]

18. OK,

"The point was that Obama's statement and the latest FDA policy in re Plan B are in conflict with the Justice Department's decision to appeal the recent ruling, and that it's not unusual for the Justice Department to act in ways that seemingly contradict statements made by this administration and positions we might reasonably expect a Democratic leader to hold."

...so now you want to discuss the issue and not go on about the thread-jacking comment. Fine.

What are you talking about? The FDA and the DOJ are the administration. The President said:

"The rule that's been put forward by the FDA, Secretary Sebelius has reviewed, she's comfortable with it -- I'm comfortable with it," Obama told reporters at a press conference in Mexico, taking questions alongside Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto after a bilateral summit.

"I'm very comfortable with the decision they’ve made right now based on solid, scientific evidence," he added.

And as I pointed out in the response to the first question, the DOJ is representing the FDA:

“This is a decision that the Justice Department is making in representing our client: F.D.A.,” the official said. “This is not a political decision. It’s not had White House intervention or involvement. This in our judgment is the right legal step to take in this case.”

[winter is coming]

19. Never mind; you're hell-bent on willfully missing the point.

Go Obama. The administration's perfect. Dems never make bad decisions.

[ProSense]

21. No,

"Never mind; you're hell-bent on willfully missing the point. Go Obama. The administration's perfect. Dems never make bad decisions."

...you decided to try to act above it all by focusing on my response to a thread-jacking. Above, you've dropped the act.

[winter is coming]

23. No; I tried pointing out to you, more than once, why it wasn't a threadjack,

but you're either stuck on a prearranged script or have an extremely narrow view of what is and isn't relevant. Either way, further discussion is pointless.

[ProSense]

24. And I disagreed. n/t

[demwing]

26. Less than 24 hours

Since I cleared out my Ignored list, now it's getting cluttered again.

[FSogol]

10. Snort!

[ProSense]

25. Do you get the feeling

that some people don't like facts?

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Yep. Especially around this site.

Thread-jacking is only a symptom of Site-jacking - and there's entirely too much of it going on since President Obama won election in 2008.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Hah! Good one, ProSense.

[Savannahmann]

14. In a word, Nuts

The Rethugs need Abortion in the news to scare their voters to the booths, and to get the supporters to cough up more donations. The Democrats need abortion to look shaky, to get the voters to the polling places, an to cough up more donations to valiantly defend a Woman's right.

This is political. If you are saying that nobody told Attorney General Eric Holder that they were doing this, I'll fall out of my chair laughing. If you are saying that Nobody at Justice mentioned it to the White House I'll have to change my underwear from laughing so hard.

Now, we can get more emails and notices, about how we have to fight, and donate, to defend a womans right to choose from the Rethugs. Apparently, we have to fight, and donate, to defend a womans right to choose, from the Democrats too. If I am voting against Rethugs for trying to limit a Woman's right to choose, do I vote for the Democrats because they are trying to limit a womans right to choose?

[SpartanDem]

20. How are Democrats trying to limit a woman's right to choose?

the appeal has nothing to with FDA decision. This is a power fight between the executive and judiciary branches, with the executive trying protect it agency head decision making ability.

[Savannahmann]

22. It was the Judiciary that gave us a Woman's right to choose in the first place

So making it sound like the Judiciary went too far makes us sound like one political party, but not the one we're here to support.

What groups traditionally support Democrats, and the progressive agenda? Hint it isn't the Religious Right. Those groups are blasting our party, our President, and frankly all of us with good reason. We had the victory, and we are bound and determined to turn it into a defeat.