Not to nitpick, but calling Plan B an abortifacient is not entirely accurate. It, like the birth control pill, works primarily by preventing ovulation. It is literally a megadose of the same hormones in birth control aimed at providing short-term alteration to the woman's cycle to halt ovulation. Also like birth control, there exists the theoretical possibility that it prevents implantation (which is where the "abortifacient" label could be applicable). Studies are not conclusive, and even if this is the case, it is NOT Plan B's primary mechanism of action. But you wouldn't call the birth control pill an abortifacient, would you? It has the same hormones and the same possibility. I think some of the absurdity you see here is misplaced.

The problem with allowing the political process to set the age at which Plan B is available is that it invariably will not consider what is best for women/girls; it will get caught up in issues like those above--does it cause an abortion? Does it not? Should we require parental consent?--and I'm inclined to believe that it will end up with a policy that will limit access to teens (ie, parental consent, setting the age cut-off higher, etc.). Let's be honest--teens WILL have sex. Making them jump through hoops to get the tools they need to avoid pregnancy, STD's, etc., is not going to change their behavior. I agree that 17 is an arbitrary cut- off, and 16 makes more sense (especially given that that is the age of consent in most states). But I don't have faith in the political process to make that call; I suspect we'll end up with a policy that severely restricts access or otherwise makes it difficult to obtain Plan B during its short time frame of efficacy (which is the main reason they made it over-the-counter).

The one proviso is that there should be proof that Plan-B is medically safe at whatever those ages might be. I suspect that studies on girls younger than 17/18 haven't actually been done yet, though.

Damn glasses, anyway.

So, law school gives one sufficient expertise to understand that 17-year-old girls should be allowed unsupervised access to abortificants but not enough to be clear on the status of 16-year-olds?

No, that very specific expertise springs from a Reagan appointment to the federal bench. Law school gives no sufficient expertise to understand anything.

Here’s the other weird thing: Ordinary birth control pills, designed to prevent pregnancy before the fact, still require a doctor’s prescription even for adults. By what logic is the federal government required by law to allow access to after-the-fact birth control to minors?

Presumably there are bona fide medical reasons for putting up the prescription barrier to birth control that do not exist where Plan B is concerned. However, if that's not the case, it would hardly be the first time the FDA and DEA have plead "medicine" when they really mean "politics" (see marijuana prohibition).

My daughter was still 15 (15 1/2, I believe) when she got her Virginia learner's permit.

...just read that as Vagina learner's permit. I was about to ask some questions but will instead head to the coffee machine. Oye.

The decision was left to the political process, and it wasn't made by the court.

Congress authorized the FDA to approve or disapprove drugs for sale based on particular factors like demonstrated safety, efficacy, etc. Congress did not authorize the FDA to say, "Safe or unsafe, we don't think morally upright 17-year-olds should be using Plan B, and so we won't allow it."

Given that the FDA lacked that power, the Bush Administration could have gone back to the political process and proposed a bill regulating use of Plan B by 17-year-olds. They didn't do that, for whatever reason.

Instead, Bush appointed FDA commissioners who refused to follow the statutes that Congress had actually passed to govern the FDA. So someone sued the FDA to make it follow its governing statutes.

This is not a case in which a judge arrogated to himself the powers of the FDA. This is a case in which a judge compelled the FDA to follow the statutes that Congress passed.

This is what I do not understand.