Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: How would you like to see the morning after pill RU-486 regulated in the US?
Available over the counter to all who want it
19
48.72%
Available by prescription only
5
12.82%
Available by prescription only with parental consent required for people under 18 years of age
Only by the political side of the FDA. If the FDA were performing according to their mandate then this would already be approved.
The mandate is to ensure it is safe and effective, both have been demonstrated to FDA stanards. All that is left is the religious right activists in the Bush admin trying to find reasons to slow down or stop it's approval.
The link is from lifenews.com and from their website I give you ...
Not exacly a useful source of info.
This drug already meets FDA stanards for approval, so why has it not been approved ? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why is anything from a website that goes against your opinion not valid nidan? Of course LifeNews is biased in their agenda, that doesn't automatically make them dishonest in their reporting! You think Planned Parenthood is non-biased???
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
And what leads you to believe that the FDA is non-biased... because in this instance they support your position on the issue.
You do understand that people in the FDA are subjected to the same influences from lobbyist as are those in Congress. The pharmacutical lobby is one of the largest, and deepest pocketed of them all.
Personally, I choose not to believe everything the FDA, or other components of our government tell us.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Your link tells us nothing, it is pure propaganda.
It talks about deaths and hundreds of people hurt, without actually telling us anthing about that data.
It's 600 hurt are actually 600 adverse events, we know nothing about under what conditions those events occured, when or what they are. For all we know they could be utterly insignificant.
It appears to me that they have taken some information and sensationalized it to try and create FUD, which for the unitiated is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It's a common corporate tactic, if you don't like something you start raising 'issues', which is exactly what there are doing.
If this was so dangerous why would it be available in Eurpoe, why would it meet FDA standards and why would the only people who oppose it be the pro life community ?
It's that last point that is telling, when the only folks that oppose somethig is one group with a proven agenda, in this case a religious pro life one, then any thing they same must be taken with a significant amount of scepticism
Linear Mode
