Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/emergency-contraception.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:07:44+00:00

Document:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) repeatedly placed ideological and political considerations over scientific evidence in its handling of the emergency contraceptive drug Plan B’s switch from prescription to over-the-counter (OTC) access. In 2004, in opposition to the opinions of FDA scientific staff and scientific advisory committees, the FDA denied the drug manufacturer’s application to make Plan B available for OTC use (giving the drug non-prescription status) without age restrictions. The FDA also denied OTC use by women 16 years and older and then 17 years and older, eventually restricting OTC access to women 18 years and older.
In the process of making a decision regarding Plan B, the White House and the FDA commissioner’s office wrongly pressured FDA staff into denying the OTC switch application, the FDA commissioner appointed scientific advisory committee members based on ideology and not scientific expertise, and the FDA did not base its decision on scientific evidence.
1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2009. Plan B (0.75mg levonorgestrel) and Plan B One-Step (1.5 mg levonorgestrel) Tablets Information.
3. Stein, R. 2007. Plan B use surges, and so does controversy. Washington Post, July 13.
4. Tummino v. Torti, No.CV-05-366 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2009) (Korman, J.).
5. Center for Reproductive Rights. 2009. Federal Court Rules FDA Must Reconsider Plan B Decision. March 23.
6. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
7. Tummino v. Torti 2009; Galson, S. 2004. Not-Approvable letter to Barr Research, Inc. May 6.
8. Tummino v. Torti 2009; U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2003. Transcript of the December 16, 2003 meeting of the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee in Joint Session with the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs. December 16.
9. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Decision Process to Deny Initial Application for Over-the-Counter Marketing of the Emergency Contraceptive Drug Plan B was Unusual. November 14.
12. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
13. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
14. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
15. Kaufman, M. 2004. Staff scientists reject FDA’s Plan B reasoning. Washington Post, June 18.
16. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
17. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
18. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
19. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
20. Kaufman, M. 2005. Memo may have swayed Plan B ruling. Washington Post, May 12.
22. Tummino v. Torti 2009; GAO 2005.
24. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
25. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
26. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
27. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
28. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
29. GAO 2005; Tummino v. Torti 2009.
31. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
32. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
33. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
35. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
36. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
37. Wood, S.F. 2005. Women’s Health and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine, October 20.
38. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
39. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
40. Tummino v. Torti 2009.
42. Stein, R. 2009. 17-year-olds to gain access to Plan B pill. Washington Post, April 23.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.