Thursday, December 08, 2011

HHS backs off on FDA approval of morning after pill

Perhaps the Obama Administration is aware that some things actually cross the line - and can have very serious consequences come November. That is how some observers are explaining the White House's decision through HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius to leave in place a requirement that women younger than 17 get a prescription for the Plan B contraceptive. You will recall the previous fight last year over the drug, which proponents call safe and opponents question. The politically charged decision by the FDA, which has previously allowed RU-486 on the open market, despite the rising death toll from that drug, was vetoed by Sebelius yesterday.

Pro-abortion forces were "left speechless" by the decision.

So now many are asking why?

After reading Jill's column, here is another thought. There is probably a clear money trail between the companies who would most benefit from the drug being out in the open market and the Obama re-election campaign. If that information was revealed, it would further damage the administration whose ties to the rich and powerful have been contained thus far by the very friendly media. But with the hearings on Planned Parenthood on the horizon, the nation still in the throes of the "Great Recession," and the so called "Occupy" movement turning its attention on Obama and those money connections, smart people close to Sebelius said that this little social experiment can wait. Lefty Catholics will try to claim some influence in order to try to sell the most pro-abortion president in history, but my guess is that there is a money connection. All of the other theories probably made it an easy sell to Sebelius who never saw an abortion plan she did not like..


At 8:26 PM, Anonymous John K. Walker said...

In my opinion, the infinitely more pertinent question here is why Sibelius (and Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and about a thousand other current and past American politicians) are still "Catholics in good standing" while politically and legally promoting legal abortion-on-demand. (I admit that I can't even come up with a point of comparison here, since nothing else could be this bad.) But, of course, this sort of truly substantive question is rendered only rhetorical by a US RC Church hierarchy which is not the least bit serious....


Post a Comment

<< Home