Justice Department to appeal judge's Plan B order

[Pale Blue Dot]

Source: MSNBC

U.S. Department of Justice officials have filed notice that they will appeal a federal judge's order requiring the Food and Drug Administration to make the so-called "morning after" pill available without a prescription to all women without age or certain sales restrictions.

The department also has asked the federal district court to stay its order, which was set to take effect on May 5, according to Allison Price, a spokeswoman.

The move comes a day after the FDA agreed to lower the age limit to 15 for sales of non-prescription Plan B One-Step emergency contraception and to make the drug available in the general aisles of stores with pharmacies, instead of behind the counter.

"Although FDA did not take that action for purposes of complying with the April 5 order, the approval has the effect of ensuring that all of the plaintiffs in this case (including the youngest of them) now have access without a prescription and without significant point-of-sale restrictions to at least one form of emergency contraception ..." reads a letter sent late Wednesday by justice officials to U.S. District Judge Edward Korman. "As a result, no plaintiff will be harmed by a stay."

Read more: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/01/18005273-justice-department-to-appeal-judges-plan-b-order?lite

---

Hooray! Great use of your resources, Justice Department!

[Warren Stupidity]

1. It is so frustrating that this administration, when it can act without obstruction

By congress chooses to take compromised half steps, and worse fight against a court doing the right thing and providing political cover in doing so.

Wtf. Just maddening.

[MotherPetrie]

2. Just like it's still 2008

[Fuddnik]

3. Oh, fuck me.

They waste time and money on this shit?

And raid MMJ clinics.

And I just got a fundraising letter from the DNC today. Guess how much they're getting. And you won't want to read what I send back on their postage.

[Fuddnik]

6. If they don't appeal, it doesn't go to the Supreme Court. End of story.

[PSPS]

8. "2/3 of the nation?"

I don't know where you pulled that figure from but rest assured that it's only the rump GOP's 20% base that is "is attempting to stop women from having any rights at all." It only seems like "2/3 of the nation" if you're watching/listening to RW media.

[graham4anything]

11. 2/3 of the states have republican governors. 80% of the people don't want it, but govs do.

I for one want an 80-20 nation politically, but the only way to do that is not be diistracted by wedge issues and keep voting straight democratic and then ignore the 20%extremes total on both sides.

All media is rightwing including the altmedia who does not want what is good for America or the President. Therefore they all are one and the same.

[Fuddnik]

9. So it's all a pissing contest over a woman's right to emergency contraception.

Some people try to justify anything.

[graham4anything]

12. No. But it has to be done correctly. Blame the judge that ruled the other day for the timing.

And ask why that was brought up now?

Either one wants the President to have a power, or one wants to get rid of the presidential powers altogether and let the governors rule in each state.

I am 100% against states rights, therefore I want the President to have as much power as possible.

Why wouldn't anyone? (especially as states rights are codewords long used to hold any minority and women down.)

After all Jefferson only said all men are created equal that look like him and are men.
He never mentioned minorities or women. I can't fathom anyone wants that in the Democratic party.

BTW, Hillary is wanting this OTC, so of course, the solution is to vote democratic in 2014, then vote for Hillary and it will happen.

[24601]

23. So you ask why wouldn't anyone want the President to have as much power as possible? First, because

not all Presidents are all that good and what is "possible" is absolute power. The power to kill citizens with impunity (oops, we already have that), the power to wiretap anyone, anytime. The power to...well unchecked power is unchecked power. The power to ignore the Supreme court order to turn over the tapes. The power to jail all the occupy participants.

The power to tax only political opponents - "OK, all those who want higher taxes, fine then, their taxes are now higher - but only theirs."

Instead, let's insist a President having the power that's delegated by the Constitution's Article II. And let's never throw out checks & balances with the Congress & Courts.

States? No, I don't want only one federal police force under Presidential control. Do you really want a state to be powerless to have a minimum wage higher then the federal minimum wage. Do you really want a state to have to obey DOMA when a President signs it and says no gay marriage anywhere? Should a state governor not be able to commute a sentence? Do you really want a state where the Governor can't deploy the National Guard after a disaster?

There is a country where the "President" has the powers you advocate. Not many people are jumping the fences to get into North Korea.

The unique nature of the United States is that through the Constitution, the people tell the Federal Government what it's powers are. No, the people should never be afraid of the government - the government should be afraid of the power of the people.

[graham4anything]

24. breaking news- Jefferson lied. Forget the BOR as they are preditated on a lie

Jefferson said all men are created equal
silly is believing that to be all people
82% of the democratic party is not a man Jefferson considered equal (as no women or minorities need apply, only Jefferson's who owned slaves.

Don't like Bush? Don't vote for anyone but Hillary in 2016 and Jeb won't win and the Bush's won't be back.

the other stuff is just hyperbole.

btw-long before the patriot act, Bobby Kennedy authorized the taping of Dr. King.
oops.

and interesting how DOMA has come up and the NRA is using Gays as shields to attempt to get NY/NJ/Illinois and California's strict gun laws overthrown.

If one didn't like the Patriot Act, why didn't NH vote for Al Gore instead of Ralph Nader?
Could NH not have liked that Al Gore attempted some history by nominating Lieberman (a Jewish person like me) for Vice President?

Was Ralph Nader after all is said against, so against having a Jewish person as VP that Nader threw the election and NH happily went for it?

All those things happened solely because a republican was President.
Yet people defend voting for Reagan (Elizabeth Warren fans) and forcing LBJ to retire in 1968, instead of having the most liberal president ever.

Except for Dr. King,and the Million man March every other protest has not achieved the goal it started out to do. (and the irony would be if every single Million Man Marcher was packing a gun while they marched).

why though, would one wish a President to have LESS power than the other two branches?
The three should be equal.
BTW-did Nixon do anything illegal? He was pardoned by a REPUBLICAN president.

had LBJ been reelected without the fracture, Nixon never would have become President.

We could have had 83 years of democratic presidents without the fracture of the protesters in the democratic party.

It should be mandatory for 100% of every democratic voter to vote for the democratic candidate and everyone else straight down the ticket.
Any straying just leads to the extremists winning.

[24601]

25. You can rely on the original constitution if you want - I'll instead consider the amendments to be

authorizing changes.

You haven't made any rational arguments for giving any president as much power as possible.

But just curious, other than those with prosthesis, most of us can't leave body parts at home when we go vote. How can less than 100% of a voter cast a vote?

[graham4anything]

26. Then reinterpreting the 2nd should be right up your alley, I know it's up mine.

Blacks were not considered people according to Thomas Jefferson.

I just made 100 arguments for a president to have the power they have now.

[24601]

31. You need to re-read what I said. I offered nothing about Jefferson. But the post-civil war

amendments changed whatever he may have thought.

Jefferson also is not credited with authoring the Constitution. You are likely thinking about the Declaration of Independence. I am not aware of codified or common law that relies on the Declaration for its legal foundation. It's function was to separate the United States from Great Britain and did not set up government, rights or process. The Constitution wasn't even the next iteration as it superseded the Articles of Confederation which did not establish a Constitutional Republic.

Reinterpreting? Never mentioned it one way or another. You may want to put your efforts into calling a Constitutional Convention. Should 2/3 of the states call for one, neither Congress or the President has any say in the matter. Amendments proposed by 2/3 of the states are ratified if 3/4 agree - and there aren't any limits on what they can propose.

You can push for your ideal of a president exercising unlimited unchecked powers. You can couple that with a completely disarmed people. Let me know how that works out for you and no, you can't count on my support for a president with the powers of an absolute monarch - unless it's me - don't complain if I extend my tenure to life, abolish further elections, set up our kids as my successors and ponder whether reactionaries such as you who dwell on dangerous radicals like Jefferson shouldn't do their dwelling in supermax - of course without charges or trial - my kids/cabinet will just pass a bill of attainder since I'd be unchecked by a Constitution. It's good to be the king - but sucks for most everyone else.

[Doctor_J]

39. So he's doing to this show he's not weak?

Here's a clue - he should try flexing his muscles in favor of health care or gun background checks or Head Start or closing Gitmo, instead of restricting women's privacy rights.

[TheMadMonk]

17. People don't want him to give them up.

People want him to exercise them in a manner that is beneficial to the people, not just politically expedient.

Obama is not going to win any RTL votes by blocking this, and frankly, those are the only people who give a flying fuck on the subject, abusive/controlling parents notwithstanding.

Medical (or even recreational) MJ, again who beneficts from restrictions? Cotton growers, big pharma and the industrialised prison system, but most certainly not you and me.

[blackspade]

40. Your lack of understanding about the

2000 election is appalling.

The Supreme Court intervened, without precedent, in the election processes of the State of Florida handing the election to Bush.
Gore won the election, but the recount, that would have shown this, was halted by the SCOTUS ruling.

[graham4anything]

44. NH came a month before.

and there is a super big question as to what would have happened if the count showed Gore winning and Florida seated the Bush electors.

I don't think anyone would have gone to war over it(as democratic party people like theones here who are furthers left, hate war.

So, it would be a conundrum to say the least.

But the supreme court gave the decision on 12/12/2000.
The election was first Tuesday in November 2000

Last I learned in 1st grade, November comes before December.Even Ralph Nader knows that.
and Ralphie admitted what he did. The Green Party in desperation told him to quit and he didn't.
Maybe indeed it was that Joe Lieberman was Jewish like I am, and it was personal for Ralph. It has to be something (most likely just $$$ in his bank account).

Don't forget- Ralph Nader's LIE- that both parties are the same.
If Ralph, who is still beloved by the exteme left, was telling the truth- then democratic candidates would have picked those 5 plus Alito and Roberts. Nader & 3rd partyites can't have it both ways.

[blackspade]

45. Nader has nothing to do with my comment about the 2000 election 'descision'

Gore won, regardless of ones feelings about Nader.
The only reason why Bush took office was that the SCOTUS stopped a legal recount in the state of Florida.
Had it continued Bush would have never been seated.

[graham4anything]

47. Nader had everything to do with Bush being seated in 2000. November came before December.

Nader and anti-semitism probably hurt more than anything.

[blackspade]

49. What are you talking about?

The only reason Gore lost was because the Florida recount was stopped by the SCOTUS.
Whatever you think 'hurt' Gore, it was the SCOTUS that gave the election to Bush, not Nader or any other factor.

There is a lot of reason to criticize Nader, but blaming him for 2000 lets the SCOTUS and our corrupt political system off the hook.
Nader is the symptom of a problem, not a cause.

[graham4anything]

50. Nader got people NOT to vote. He told them why bother, both parties the same.

when you hear a meme 24/7/365 it sinks in (back then), and people back then admired Ralph and didn't bother.

Scotus came later, not letting them off the hook, but a recount was unneccesary had NH gone for Gore(and there was no indication of any theft in NH except for Nader's massive votes.

[blackspade]

51. You are missing the point.

Nader made no difference, whether it was November or December.
Gore won. Period.
It was the SCOTUS that installed the worst President we have ever had.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Spin, rinse, repeat.

[Doctor_J]

38. This poster is needing more detergent every day though.

The bigger the outrage, the quicker it's here to excuse it

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. Insane, isn't it?

Gives new meaning to defending the indefensible doesn't it?

[idwiyo]

5. Fucking vomit inducing.

[Pterodactyl]

16. Yes, it is. And the other side effects include nausea, stomach pain, dizziness,...

...breast tenderness, tiredness and weakness, headache, menstrual changes, and diarrhea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Side_effects

[idwiyo]

18. But alternative is of course sooooo much better! Thanks for enlightening me.

The decision to appeal IS vomit inducing for all the right reasons.

[Pterodactyl]

27. You are quite welcome!

[Sunlei]

30. people do need to realise this med is just a higher dose of some regular type birth control pills.

On the streets this is a known fact and plenty of people use birth control pills at a 'morning after' dose.

I don't understand why any politican,any court or even the President wants American people to continue doing self medicating for "morning after" birth control.

Or even 'self abortions' using a catheter and a syringe.

Americans deserve the right to choose for themselves, and have Medical professionals assist them.

[Small Accumulates]

10. Disgusting.

I'm simply disgusted.

[IDemo]

13. Does the DoJ sit around and think up ways of pissing the people off?

Probably while smoking confiscated MJ?

[pediatricmedic]

15. It seems like it sometimes

[SpartanDem]

14. You people flipping out over the headline, this doesn't affect yesterdays age change

Last edited Wed May 1, 2013, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

The administration doesn't want the court order to the FDA to set a legal precedent, they want it to be solely an agency decision. Getting the court order overturned and the FDA lowering the age are two separate issues.

Justice officials appeared to be concerned by the precedent the order would send in overturning a top administrative decision. Officials said that the court exceeded its authority by specifying action regarding the one-pill Plan B One Step product and by ordering the FDA to make emergency contraception available instead of sending the issue back to the agency for reconsideration, documents showed.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Which continues to keep barriers up to impede access.

Instead of making this available unrestricted over the counter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Are you saying they agree with the decision, they just wanted to say it themselves?

If so, it seems a petty thing to do to appeal. Not to mention a waste of money, tying up lawyers to argue "we'd do this anyway, but resent being told by the courts to do it".

[SpartanDem]

32. It's not a petty issue for the executive branch,

you want to protect your agency head's decision making ability. So from purely legal perspective it makes sense that they challenge the ruling to prevent the courts from setting a precedent.

[byeya]

33. If the DOJ wins, then couldn't the next administration just change the regulation?

[SpartanDem]

34. Yes, but if they lose. You could be potentially be setting a precedent for a conservative judge

to overturn another progressive FDA regulation. I say to potentially because I have no idea how this judge reached their decision.

[byeya]

66. Ordinarily I would prefer the FDA to rule on drugs and their availability and usage. Maybe that was

just back in the good old days of ethics or maybe not.

Anyway, thanks for the answer.

[blackspade]

41. Part of the issue is....

that if the current agency makes the decision, the next administration's agency can undo the decision.
If it is a court order that is not the case.

[SpartanDem]

42. As pointed out to another posted who made that same point

you could setting precedent to allow a conservative judge overrule a progressive regulation. So it cuts both ways

[blackspade]

43. That happens all the time.

So we should shaft progressive judicial results one of the few times this kind of shit goes our way?
My point is that it is harder to unmake a judicial decision like this that an administrative one.
And I am perfectly aware that it cuts both ways. It's been cutting the conservative way for decades.

[SpartanDem]

52. The judicial results doesn't mean overall legal reasoning is progressive

it could very well give conservative judges legal ground to do the opposite.

[blackspade]

54. I believe I pointed that out.

Conservative judges have been doing this type of ruling for decades.
This time it went in a progressive direction.

[judesedit]

28. If you don't want abortions & you don't want unwanted pregnancies, this pill is the best thing going

Every woman should keep one or some handy in case of emergency for anyone they know just in case some pharmacies won't comply. As soon as they become available, stock up. Just FYI. They may be available already, but since I'm post menapausal I haven't needed contraceptives so I'm not sure. I certainly will be checking out the situation though.

[24601]

63. Supposed you are the Pharmacist with a 15 year old female comes in accompanied by a

domineering 25+ year old male. He tells her to request plan B which she then does and he pays. You have no facts but your intuition tells you that there's something very wrong with this relationship.

What does the law require you to do and what does the law prohibit you from doing and ehere do you have any discretion?

Two days later, the same guy brings in another underage female for the same thing. What do you do?

[Myrina]

29. Why? Why? Why?

Who the hell are these people in DC??

[Doctor_J]

37. The President has ID'd himself as a Republican

so in that sense this is not surprising.

[graham4anything]

48. LBJ was more liberal than Bernie Sanders and the protesters took LBJ down

[blackspade]

55. History fail.

[graham4anything]

57. LBJ had 1000s of achievements. While others dreamed, LBJ did. I love LBJ!

for every action, there are consequences.

The only protests that actually achieved positives were Dr. King's and The Million Man March.

In retrospect, looking back, alas, the only thing the Vietnam protests did was
not end the war any quicker
destroyed the democratic party for years
Gave us Nixon, and then, worse, gave us Reagan and the Bush's
and it didn't prevent other wars
What a waste, tearing LBJ down.

and now the 20% want to destroy the 80% to give us another Bush.

wow.

[blackspade]

58. Again, your understanding of history

is flawed.
History is not just simple cause and effect.
There are huge numbers of variables, many of which are not even known during the course of historical events.

[graham4anything]

59. you just agreed with me. Looking back, tis easy to see and make sure NEVER AGAIN

[blackspade]

60. We are definately not in agreement on the facts.

You are conflating my explanation of historical processes with agreeing with your interpretation of historical events.

[blackspade]

35. More Justice Department stupidity.

[Doctor_J]

36. Unbelievable

Wait, actually it's NOT unbelievable. Disgusting, yes. Unbelievable, no.

Now, liberals - get out there and vote next year!

[Laelth]

46. You have got to be kidding. n/t

-Laelth

[sakabatou]

53. *facepalm*

[Pterodactyl]

56. Question: Why is it available only to women? Can't men buy it?

[winter is coming]

65. My understanding is that men can buy it, although some pharmacists have refused to sell it. n/t

[Pterodactyl]

69. That's just terrible!

Men (or teenage boys for that matter) should have the same rights.

[davidn3600]

70. Some pharmacists have claimed they are concerned men who buy it may be a pimp or rapist

There is no legal barrier that prevents men from buying the drug. But many pharmacists claim they should be able to refuse sale of this and any drug on "ethical concerns."

The ACLU has in the past sued over this kind of thing. But it's not stopping the "gatekeepers" from refusing sales because of hypothetical scenarios they can create in their head at any time.

[marshall]

61. Do they feel 15 is not young enough?

I am sure there are 14, 13, 12, and even younger who would benefit from unrestricted access to this healthcare. But the age limit has to be put somewhere, or not restrict it at all. Can 6 or 7 year olds buy Tylenol, aspirin, etc?

[winter is coming]

64. I've never seen or heard any indication that there's an age restriction for Tylenol.

AFAIK, the only age-restricted items are alcohol, tobacco, and Plan B. Anyone else heard differently?

[grahamhgreen]

62. WTF!!!

[wordpix]

68. geez, let women choose Plan B if Plan A didn't work - what is with this DOJ!?